Viacom CEO Outlines Future Of Paramount Tentpole Releases, Includes Star Trek

While there has been a lot of news about the next Trek TV show (Star Trek: Discovery coming to CBS All Access this fall), news on Paramount’s plans for the next feature film is much more scarce. However, there was a mention about the future of the Trek film franchise by the CEO of Viacom, Paramount’s parent company, at an investor event this week.

Viacom CEO: Star Trek Part Of Future Tentpole Strategy For Paramount

On Wednesday, Viacom CEO Robert M. Bakish spoke at a Deutsche Bank investors event, the same event CBS CEO Les Moonves spoke at earlier in the week. Bakish was promoted to Viacom CEO after a shakeup inside the corporation in 2016, and spent much of his time outlining his planned changes to Viacom’s strategy going forward. Of interest to Star Trek fans is discussions of the future of Paramount Pictures.

Bakish told the investors that Paramount was “committed to releasing 15 pictures a year” in the near future. However, he noted that they are moving away from Paramount just being a “silo” within Viacom to a more “integrated strategy,” with the studio working to release films tied to assets and talent from Viacom’s various TV networks like MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, BET, and others. They are also rebranding Spike TV as the Paramount Network as part of this effort to “leverage TV brands for film and vice versa.”

As part of a strategy of integration Viacom seeks to integrate its TV properties with the Paramount film studio while rebranding one of the TV properties as the Paramount Network

As part of a strategy of integration Viacom seeks to integrate its TV properties with the Paramount film studio while rebranding one of the TV properties as the Paramount Network

More specifically, the new plan is to dedicate about half the Paramount production slate to films tied to Viacom TV properties, but that still leaves half the slate for other projects. Regarding those, he said:

The other half of the slate will be full stream Paramount projects. Because we have reduced the volume we can be a little more selective. They obviously will include significant tentpoles, whether that is Transformers or Mission [Impossible] or Star Trek or other newer franchises. But we feel fundamentally that will be an advantaged strategy for our company and can produce superior returns.

While just a passing mention, it is significant that the new CEO of Viacom–who moved into that position after Star Trek Beyond had already underperformed–is still talking about the Trek franchise in the same vein as Paramount’s other big two franchises. Between 2006 and 2016, Paramount released three films from each of those franchises, more than any of their other major properties. And for each year during that period with one or more of those franchise releases they have been the top grossing films for the studio, and that includes 2016’s Star Trek Beyond.

Since 2013, Paramount has released one film from each of those franchises every summer: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014), Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015), and Star Trek Beyond (2016). Transformers: The Last Knight is set to be released this summer with the sixth Mission film slotted for the summer of 2018 and the seventh Transformers set for summer 2019.

Last summer Paramount announced they will develop a fourth Star Trek film with JJ Abrams as the producer, but as of this time the studio has yet to officially greenlight (meaning approved budget and script) or set a date. As noted before, a big decision on the direction and budget for it likely couldn’t happen until a new CEO comes on board.

Paramount summer tentpoles from 2013-2107

Paramount summer tentpoles from 2013-2107

New Paramount CEO Soon – Trek Advocate Now Running Film Business

As discussed here on TrekMovie last week, Viacom is searching for a new CEO after Brad Grey was shown the door, having delivered a very underwhelming 2016. Bakish told investors the search is “well along” and there should be an announcement in the “very near future.” In the short term, Bakish assured investors the studio is in good hands with a trio of executives in control, including President of the Motion Picture Group Marc Evans, who Bakish noted “runs the film business.” This name may not be well known, but Evans has played a key role in Star Trek and been an advocate for the franchise inside the studio.

Around a decade ago, when Evans was the head of production for Paramount, he pushed to bring the franchise back after it went dormant following the box office failure of Star Trek: Nemesis in 2002. Not only did Evans lobby to start making Star Trek films again, he also convinced then-CEO Brad Grey to devote more resources to Trek than had been seen in decades. It was Evans who first reached out to producer/director JJ Abrams and writer/producers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who all eventually worked together to reboot the franchise with 2009’s Star Trek.

Current President of Paramount Marc Evans personally brought in JJ Abrams to reboot the franchise

Current President of Paramount Marc Evans personally brought in JJ Abrams to reboot the franchise

Paramount May Have Money Problems and Saldana May Soon Become Even Busier

But before Paramount starts spending any more money, they have some financial issues to deal with. As previously reported, following 2016’s bad year the studio felt they needed to bring in some major outside financing to fund the current production slate, which they found with two Chinese film and media companies. However just yesterday The Hollywood Reporter cited sources in the studio saying that Shanghai Film Group and Huahua Media haven’t yet provided Paramount with the previously announced billion-dollar funding, are said to “have questions” about the studio’s new direction, and are seeking a meeting with Bakish to discuss the future of the studio.

And then there is the area of logistics. Again as noted last week, Zoe Saldana will be returning to Pandora for director James Cameron by late summer. Yesterday Cameron confirmed with the Toronto Star that his plan was to produce multiple films back to back, noting “We’re making Avatar 2, 3, 4 and 5. It’s an epic undertaking,” and adding that that it will be his main focus for the next eight years. This will likely tie up a lot of Saldana’s time during that period and be a factor in any new Trek film that wants to include her in a major role. That being said, the productions for the 2009 Star Trek film and the first Avatar had some overlap and Cameron and Abrams were able to come to an accommodation for the actress to shoot both.

Later this year Saldana will be returning possibly on and off for a year - which may effect future Star Trek plans

Later this year Saldana will be returning possibly on and off for a year – which may effect future Star Trek plans

As always, stay glued to for all news, whispers and more about the future or Star Trek movies. You can keep tabs on all updates on the next movie via our Star Trek XIV category.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting…I wonder if Logan will become a guidepost for whatever the next film iteration of Trek is. I’m sure Trek won’t go the hard R rating route, but seems like making a (relatively) smaller, more character driven film has paid big dividends for Fox. Hoping the right folks are paying attention.

The best Trek movie ever made is also the cheapest. No one in Hollywood seem to understand that. They just keep throwing 200 million dollars worth of CGI crap at the screen.

I would agree, the CGI should be the icing on the cake. It should however not constitute the whole cake.

Well said.

Well, that’s largely because of the investment already made in ST:TMP. The sets, miniatures, and even some of the uniforms were all re-used.

Indeed an important factor to consider.

Thorny makes the point that so many “cgi = bad” arguments forget. There was a lot saved and re-used for Trek 2 and the other cheaper Treks. If you want to look at how Trek doesn’t work when you strip it of money, look at Trek V. Script and direction aside, it should have looked better. The trick is to just find a balance between character and spectacle. It doesn’t need to be incredibly expensive but it doesn’t have to be “cheap” either.


I’ve yet to see Logan but I’ve heard great things and even though I did enjoy all 3 JJ films, I would be on board for a character driven “smaller” Trek movie.

Same, I love all Star Trek including the 3 JJ films even if there are those that say its Star Trek only in name. They’re fun. But I think a smaller budget Star Trek film would benefit from being less CG driven and focus on a strong, solid, meaningful story.

Agreed, Fritz. I hope Star Trek and other franchises take notice of Logan. There’s talk of another Terminator and Indiana Jones; they too could benefit from going smaller.

Well, the last Terminator was just awful, and all you can say about Crystal Skull was that it made money. Going smaller won’t rub the stink off of either franchise at this point.

That’s the spirit!

Indeed. Logan and Deadpool. And if I recall correctly Cameron has taken back Terminator, im hoping this will be good just as Ridley Scott went back to Alien.

Just to put some perspective, Logan’s reported production budget is $97 million, compared to ST09 ($150 million), STID ($190 million) and Beyond’s $185 million. Nemesis’ price tag was $60 million in 2002’s dollars, which should be about the same level as Logan’s $97 million in 2017.

I agree. Deadpool also set a precedent for movie making.

I hope not! I was very unimpressed with Logan. I wanted so much more for Jackmans last film.

Reducing time between Trek and Mission Impossible installments should be good for them.

Although the Transformers films are not movies that I enjoy, those certainly seem to be making plenty of money for them.

I agree. The TOS movies did quite well for their day and they were only a few years apart.

But I feel that the movies should move away from reboots and retelling of already told era’s and move beyond the 24th century and Nemesis. Go to the 25th or 26th century with a new crew, new characters, new ship, new areas of space, new new new! Would be nice to see a fresh new Star Trek movie not based on what has already been. TOS movies, TOS Reboot, TNG….there is more to tell before considering reboots. And yet…it looks like Discovery is a reboot. Only 10 years before Kirk, Bryan says it connects Archers time to Kirk. I think its too close to Kirk’s time and is a reboot of sorts, but not quite the way the new movies are.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Enterprise it showed us an era we knew little about. If the movies and TV shows are not going to move into the future at least cover parts of eras that are far enough away from each other, 50 post Archer or pre Kirk. Or 40 years post Kirk pre Picard. Except for Enterprise Star Trek has always moved into the future, its one of the qualities we love about it. But we also like history to be filled in lol.

I think the franchise (TV and movies) would be better off if they moved into the future with new crews, character, ships, unknown parts of the galaxy or other galaxies.

And I agree with you about the Transformers films. I enjoyed the first one but lost interest by the time the second one was out. Ive seen all 4 at some point but I have zero interest in the 5th. Its just more of the same, have CG FX, little story. Im starting to feel the same way about the Marvel superhero movies, I’ve crossed the line about any interest in them. I like Guardians but beyond that…meh. I love the X-men movies and they certainly kept it fresh with the Wolverine movies and Deadpool which was fantastic, and as much as I liked Apocalypse its succumbing to the Transformers and Marvel movie issues.

Chadwick, I’ll tell you what I want, and it’s riding on your coat tails a bit. I want the pre-Kirk, post Archer Romulan War story. I honestly think, that the powers that be, have no idea how to tell that story and that’s why we haven’t gotten it. DS9 did a great job on the Founders War, so it isn’t that they don’t know how to put a story like that together, it just seems to me that they’ve gone out of their way NOT to tell us the story of the Romulan War in a weekly format.

Yea no doubt. We would have gotten the Romulan war if Enterprise went 7 seasons like DS9 did. But that last episode jumped passed the Romulan war to the founding of the federation. They just didn’t have time to tell it, thanks to Les Moonves hatred of Bakula and wanting him fired, not understanding Star Trek, moving it to a shitty time slot so it would lose viewers and he could cancel the show. I would love a Romulan war story as much as I want Star Trek to move beyond the 24th century.

the 24th Century is already far enough. If they go any farther it will be unrelatable on any level.

Nobody but trek fans cares what era the movies are set in, but 25th century trek will go nowhere in terms of attracting anyone. The 24th century is 90s trek. Nemesis was 15 years ago. It’s not relevant anymore. Reboot trek is barely relevant at this point.

Yea no kidding because the average movie goer has no idea. It has to be relatable to non trek fans to bring the audience in hence the reboot of Kirk which everyone on this planet know who that character is. The point is that going into a future era is what is right for Star Trek, not the low brow movie goer who thinks Star Trek is a space action movie.
To be quite honest you dont really know if a 25th century trek will attract anyone. You can make assumptions, but you dont REALLY know. Im just saying what is best for Trek, not what will attract low brow transformers fans.
Why hell are you even in here if you are saying everything is irrelevant. Go away.

LOL I remember reading over and over again the Prime universe was no longer relevant now that the KT universe was around and we will never see the Prime universe again. That was about as short sighted as your statement. Its amazing how narrow and short term people look at things on the internet. Star Trek will be around for decades. The 24th century will come back just like someone will come up with an idea to go farther in the future.

You just said reboot Trek is barely relevant which last time I checked took place in the 23rd century. So if thats no longer ‘relevant’ what is then? You basically ruled out every iteration except Enterprise lol.

End of the day its relevant as long as they come up with compelling stories or characters to make it relevant, that’s it. But you’re right, to the average audience they don’t care what century or universe its set in, its all the same to them. Only Trek fans can tell you the difference between the 23rd and 24th century to begin with. Since we don’t actually live in those centuries now audiences only knows because someone tells them thats the time the show or film takes place in.

But it also kills your entire argument if the casual audience DON’T care as you said, then how is being in the 25th century will not attract them? They wouldn’t even know the difference, only Trek fans would. So its contradictory and frankly short sighted as stated.

Sorry but I disagree. When Daniels appeared on Enterprise from the 31st century, that opened the book to allow the franchise to play with the eras between the 24th century and the 31st century.

Anthony, is that you? Welcome back — hope you are here to stay. Great article.

Please make them cheaper… and one every two years… and focused on the characters. Forget the damned 45 cig or give of ‘splosions. Just give us good stories!

Yea, would be nice.,,,lol just makes me think of O’Brian on DS9, Empok Nor. Must have, could use, would be nice, Cardassian emblems and insignia? This is a salvage mission Pechetti, not an opportunity to indulge your collecting obsession.

Ugh, Moonves.
The guy who killed 2017’s Trek TV revival with micromanagement, stupid ideas, ignorance to the fandom and fired the showrunner just to make a bargaining chip at the board of directors that he should in fact be paid his productivity bonus.

Why are you people even giving him publicity?

Let’s not order an autopsy on Discovery until it’s cancelled, shall we?

‘Bring out your dead’.

‘I’m feeling much better’.

‘No, you’re not’.


I think they should not air Discovery in CBSAA, but in the castle of Aaaaaaarhhhhh… :-P



Fuller deserved to be sacked if he couldn’t fully commit to Star Trek

I agree. Fuller pissed me off a bit. I love him, I love how much of a Star Trek fanboy he is, he’s always wanted to lead a new Star Trek and he gives it up for American God’s. Of the three people I want to see run a new show, Fuller was one, and he passed. If I knew that was the case, I would have rather had Ron Moore or Bryan Singer. But Moore is busy with Outlander and Singer is back with his X-Men. If Fuller can’t commit, see ya bud, your one chance to shown run a Star Trek and ya gave it up.

Oh man, the name Moonves leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Complete ignorance to Star Trek, what it means and its fandom. He just does not get it, never has and probably never will. He wanted Bakula fired, and Berman said…um no, Go Berman. Mooves canceled Enterprise and Im sure many other negative actions towards Star Trek. Its why I am very weary of anything he says about Star Trek Discovery. When Moonves says he’s impressed and excited about what he sees regarding Star Trek Discovery post production…..what does that mean exactly!? Seriously! What the frack does that mean coming from a guy who does not “get” Star Trek!?

I can only hope with the plethora of producers and writers they have from various backgrounds including Star Trek that it will be a fantastic show. I wasn’t happy about the Kurtzman announcement for obvious reasons and look, it turned out to be true, the show is indeed a reboot. But whatever, thats ok, it is the history of the future and canon is not set in stone as history changes as does the history of the future lol…but I believe with Kurtzman, Fuller’s contribution before he left, Meyer, Beyer, and Menosky it will be a great show and its in the hands of some wonderful and experienced people.

Look who’s back from the Genesis planet. Hello again Anthony! It’s good to see your name on the byline of an article here again. :)

Didn’t notice the AP byline. Just visiting?

Well, that was a whole lot of nothing. Assuming the one ‘tentpole’ a year offering, Trek is back in 2020. Unless Paramount is happy enough with how Bad Robot has performed as a whole, they, along with the rest of this cast will have moved on. I’ll be happy to see Trek back on the big screen, someday, but it’s likely not to be in this form…

Well, unless the new CEO really shakes things up, the word is Payne and McKay who were supposed to write the 3rd reboot movie are working on the 4th. But that could all easily come to an end with one word from the CEO. I have a feeling there might be one more reboot movie and thats it. JJ said it would deal with George Kirk and if it does in my opinion would bring the reboot movies full circle with Kirk meeting his father and dealing with how it has haunted his life, dealing with it, and bringing that story to an end.

At this point, there seems to be almost no action behind whatever ‘the word’ may be. When Beyond rolled out, the forth installment was supposed to hit theaters next year – as Pine hasn’t heard anything about a movie you’d think he’d be starring in, that’s looking really iffy at this point. Given the comments to investors, it’s hard to read anything into it beyond reaffirming that Paramount does, indeed, own the Star Trek movie franchise.

Man, “Avatar” has aged quite poorly; it’s certainly not on anyone’s heavy rotation list of classic films to re-watch, especially since 3D as we know it seems to be coming to its end as a film draw, and 3D home theater tech is DOA. I hope James Cameron jumps onto his old Terminator franchise as promised in 2019 as well. As for Trek, it’s nice to hope that the film franchise will be properly cared for. Once the new show re-introduces all the original TOS characters (you know they will – why else would they set it 10 years prior?), maybe they can do a TNG film.

Well, here’s the dollar ninety eight question on a new TNG film – what does it look like. Spiner and Stewart both talk like they know that ship has sailed, so do you go the full ‘reimagined’ treatment with it?

I don’t think they will ever do another TNG film with the original cast again. Its already been 15 years since the last one (wow). I don’t see them rebooting it with new actors either. I just think they would have the same issues like they had with the KT films. Fans are just too fickle. I mean I would be fine if they tried but I think it would spell trouble down the line.

I think moving beyond the 24th century would be more favourable over rebooting what has already been done. TOS reboot was not necessary, nor is a TNG reboot. Move on, go into the future the way Star Trek (except for Enterprise) has always done.

I agree. I have only rewatched Avatar once since I saw it in theatres. I am also happy 3D is on its way out, thanks in part to the major TV makers not wanting to produce 3D TV’s any more. The occasional 3D movie is fun to see in theatres but I don’t have one 3D blu-ray, cuz I don’t really care for it. And the tinted 3D glasses used in theatres darkens the image so much. Would love to see Cameron get back on the Terminator franchise as Ridley Scott went back to the Alien franchise. My fav alien movie is still the first one, it stands the test of time. I also thoroughly enjoyed Prometheus because it offered mystery in the story along with the gore lol.

But more TNG films, like reboots? No, TNG is over, let it be. And as much as I would have loved to see a DS9 and Voyager movie their time has come and gone. What should be done is a movie with a new crew, new characters, new ship set beyond the 24th century, beyond Nemesis. Except for Enterprise which I love, Star Trek has always gone into the future, its one of the many aspects that is enjoyable about the franchise. A new movie that relies on something new and not continuing like TOS and TNG movies and not a reboot. Even covering an era after Archer pre Kirk or post Kirk pre Picard. There are just so many option to choose from before having to retell or reboot an era that has already been explored.

I’ve never found the time to actually watch it lol

I wish Paramount would just go down a standalone film route and scrap the jjverse. There’s lots of great stories out there that could be told

Amen, Spud69!

Standalone film, $50 mil or lower budget, SCRAP the JJverse, cut the CGI down to a dozen or so shots, and write it to use (or redress) whatever sets still exist from BEYOND. (I’d still prefer a $30 mil +/- budget which is in line to allow for inflation what Nick Meyer/Harve Bennett did with TWOK 35 years ago…but too many fools still think more money = more wow, more coolness, more bigger and more better ‘splosions.)

That would NOT work. $50 million or under would not be made for a multitude of reasons. Mostly because $50 million films are not ‘tentpole’ movies for studios anymore as the article stated what Paramount is looking for.

And this is tiring to say but I’ll say at again: You can not just take TWOK from 1982 dollars and inflate to todays dollars. Its way too simplified. Movies are simply made different today. They rely more on CGI which are more expensive and you can not get a premium cast for that price among other things. Its just waaaaaaaay too unrealistic and would never happen.

And in that just watch the TV show.

But yes they certainly can be cheaper and need to be, but around $100 million is realistic where it counts as a tentpole film but a lower end one. Logan only cost $95 million but Logan also didn’t place in space with battles and exotic planets. ;)

The Bond films are a perfect example of how adapting with the times and what people want to watch can keep the franchise going and going. Star Trek at the theatres is now in a fragile position. Bond was in this position in 2002. Die Another Day performed reasonably well at the box office but the reception from the fans and several of the main critics was not too great. So Bond came back after four years with a whole new grittier look, a completely different actor in the title role. Star Trek needs to come back with a grittier and more character driven story while still giving audiences really impressive action set-pieces. Beyond was basically this franchises version on Die Another Day in my opinion; fluff and fireworks with no grit or realism. Its enjoyable in parts but just ultimately daft and not very re-watchable.

Great analogy! I completely agree. Bond has always been rebooted with new actors, so it works for the franchise. Since Star Trek is the “history of the future” I agree with you in the direction they should go but in doing so, it should continue to go into the future, past the 24th century (Nemesis) with a new characters and a new ship. There is so much to tell, many centuries to explore, there is no need to reboot. Another option over reboot is the Enterprise root, cover an era like post Archer pre Kirk or post Kirk pre Picard that has not been explored. Just so many options to choose from before a reboot should even be considered.

It would NOT work for YOU. But there are lots of us who say it WOULD work. Many of us either in the industry or with multiple industry friends who are saying the same thing. If it’s tiring to say, then don’t say it.

But sure, keep talking, Tiger. You might even make a valid point. :)

Why do people like you only single out one post as if only one person is saying ti lol. NO ONE is agreeing with you here. No one. The reasons have been posted. It would never happen.

I have a valid point because no one today is making under $50 million movies lol. You are the one who has to prove the burden you have a valid point by showing a tentpole franchise for that low of money is being made today and thriving. Can you point out ONE please? Just one now. Anytime. ;)

The reality is today’s studios have a completely different mindset than from 30 years ago for a reason, its a very different world now. As I said I AGREE with you the next films can definitely be smaller budget wise, but its never going to be lower than $100 million. And thats still nearly half than what Beyond cost. My guess is Paramount probably won’t make one smaller than $120 million because it still needs to compete with all the other guys out there.

It will never happen. Certainly not anytime soon because you’re avoiding the realities of trying to make something that cheap. And as been said TWOK today would cost mush more ANYWAY so I wish people at least understood that.

If people want a much lower Trek well that’s what the shows are for. And why Trek is better on TV anyway.

But I don’t get this weird obsession, its not your money so don’t worry about it lol.

Ok I stand corrected. Actually one other person do agree with you! See I can admit I’m wrong. ;)

LOL @ a $50 million Trek movie. Come on lets be realistic you can’t get a big tentpole sci-fi movie made for that much today. You can go smaller and more character driven but you’re still going to be around $100 million. Remember, studios can’t just make movies for the fans, they need as many eyeballs as they can get to make their money and the general audience wants explosions and lasers and weird CGI robots and aliens. Those things cost a lot of money. You can have both though – character driven and special effects heavy. It just has to be done right.

Even The Martian cost $108 million and that was literally one guy stuck on a planet, character driven, no explosions or aliens. The reality of making CGI space movies even with piratically no action or heavy space battles are still going to cost a solid amount if you want the thing to look passable on the big screen and a decent cast. No one in their right mind would even try to make something that low but expect to get a big audience for it. It wouldn’t pass muster and feel too cheap.

Its not 1982 anymore lol.

Yeah. They made better movies in 1982.

There are just as many stinkers in 1982 like there is every year. The difference so many of those have been long forgotten.

And all the ones people liked in that era have been given sequels and reboots over and over again so its not like these movies ever left. Wasn’t Blade Runner in 1982 as well? Well rejoice we now have a sequel coming. So trust me, the 80s will never be gone: Just rebooted with much more expensive budgets and FX.

Exactly, myofb dog.


Harry Plinkett & Tiger2,

Re: …be realistic you can’t get a big tentpole sci-fi movie made for that much…

You two do realize this is the same Paramount that took a purported $10,000 film, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, injected it with $10 mil and turned it into a tentpole?

The only negative about such a budget, with which I can arrive, is that it might be perceived by Paramount as an argument to remake CATSPAW.

Yeah, they can do a Star Trek found film for 10 Million! Not comparable. You miss the point.


Re:…Not comparable.

Why? Just because you say so?

And the amount we were discussing was $50 million.

It’s total BS that once you’ve spent $200 million on a film that you can never make one for less that’ll be as or more successful or respected.

There’s no accounting where a certain price tag will guarantee a filmmaker will have the genius, ingenuity, inspiration and inventiveness to make the best of the resources, no matter how meager or generous, a studio puts at the auteur’s disposal.

No one isn’t saying they can’t make one less than $200 million. But you’re dreaming if you think they can for $50 million lol. Not in today’s reality IF you want to call your film a tentpole film. I don’t understand why you would want something so cheap? I think $100 million is reasonable but I’m not sure Paramount would even go that low at this point.

When TOS and TNG films were being made, they weren’t targeted for a global audience, just mostly Americans. They didn’t care about getting them into China. There was no IMAX and 3D was seldom used. CGI not depended on back then like today. And there simply wasn’t the franchise mindset like it is today. Don’t get me wrong its always been there since the 70s but today thats ALL studios mostly concentrate on and now you have to compete with all these others to get the screens and the audience.

LOL man you are comparing Paranormal Activity to STAR TREK????

Dude why don’t you also compare it to Harry Potter, Mission Impossible and Avengers. “Hey look everyone, a movie with a handheld shot in the directors own home (yes you heard correctly) for 10 days with a bunch of nobodies cost only $10,000. Now how can we get Infinity War down for a much lower price as well?”

C’mon, this is not even in the realm of reality. And horror movies are NOTORIOUS for being cheap movies. Have been for decades. And thats obviously cheaper than normal. Movies with space opera themes are notoriously expensive for obvious reasons. Even on TV the average Trek episode would compete with most horror films shot today. I think those Saw movies cost around $5-10 million. Now how much does you average space film cost? I get your point but you’re comparing apples and oranges.


Re: apples and oranges

I wasn’t out so much to compare but to demonstrate the limits of budgets that Paramount has for its tentpoles.

However, I deny your incomparable posit, for to accept it, I would have to swallow its supercilious notion that STAR TREK can’t do horror, which is patently ridiculous.

I remind you that the first series drew writers known in the ranks of horror such as Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson, etc. and a host of other production employees from both THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS television series which also had recourse to said genre and its writers.

It also does not appear clear to me why you believe the possibility of Paramount deciding to angle a STAR TREK production more along the lines of the budget and tone of ARRIVAL is so out of the question?

Ultimately, yours or my opinion on how incomparable STAR TREK is to other tentpoles doesn’t matter, because the point of this discussion is what PARAMOUNT compares it to, and they’ve already compared it to the incomparable AVENGERS, DARK KNIGHT and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY comic book genre where it fell short.

Cray Cray. Horror… Star Trek! Lololllllololol

Paranormal Activity are cheap movies that are literally filmed in a house for 2 weeks. Its pretty ridiculous to even compare at all. And they are NOT tentpole movies which is another reason not to compare. Obviously the budget itself tells you that. So does the marketing and the time they are released. They are released in September and October, one of the deadest months of the movie season (no pun intended ;)). Tentpole films are released at the biggest times of the year like these Star Trek films has been which are usually summer, Spring and late fall. PA don’t compete with anything because they are not meant to. And studios don’t rely on them to make other films with.

And they wouldn’t make a film that low because that’s not what a tentpole film IS man. I mean seriously, look up the definition of a tentpole movie. As for Arrival is not tentpole movie. It only made $200 million. Thats peanuts for a movie studio today. It was a good film but it was a one off for a reason. Movie studios would not even invest in Arrival sequels. Its not worth it to them because it would be too limited beyond making a small profit. It was clearly made more for Oscar bait. It wasn’t trying to set up a long lasting franchise which most Tentpole films are now. Were there any Arrival merchandise? Did they sell happy meal toys?

And the average Paramount Tentpole film is around $160+ million. This isn’t my ‘opinion’ its a basic fact. Current Paramount tentpole franchises in the last decade: Mission Impossible, TMNT, Transformers, Indiana Jones, G.I. Joe and obviously Star Trek. The lowest made film is around $125 million. The highest is $210 million. So yes I’m saying what PARAMOUNT compares it to. They don’t make under $100 million tentpole franchise movies. I can’t think of any studios that does today, not in the age of sequels, reboots, spin offs and shared universes. They may make one a little cheaper but it will always be on the higher side or it wouldn’t be considered a tentpole franchise.

Look I’m personally not against a lower Trek film, I’m only telling you why it would never happen. Not that low anyway. I’m not against George Takei getting his own Star Trek show for instance but it would simply never happen thats all.

Most sci-fi (and yeah, I’m lumping in the comic book movies here) that identify as tentpoles are in the 150MM range. Decent stand alone sci-fi in recent years have been in the 125MM range. The example of the type of product you might get on a 30-50MM budget might reflect how 10 Cloverfield Lane was a lose sequel to Cloverfield. It may work, and could be quite a solid movie, but the likelihood of it being a ‘brave captain and crew’ epic is remote – it’ll be a stand alone movie in the franchise, nothing more, nothing less.

To add to your point Phil,

I went and looked at all the budgets of every sci fi space film in the last decade or so and yes the average cost of them are around $150 million. Here are the more known ones made in the last 10 years sans the Star Trek films:

-The Martian: $108 million

-Interstellar: $165 million

-Gravity: $100 million

-Guardians of the Galaxy: $170 million

-Star Wars: The Force Awakens: $245 million

-Passengers: $110 million

-Star Wars: Rogue One: $200 million

-Prometheus: $130 million

I was curious so I looked them up on Box Office Mojo. I was actually surprised Interstellar cost so much. I always thought it was around $140 million but when you’re Nolan these days you can demand whatever you want I guess lol.

But anyway the point is this is just the standard costs of most space movies today. There is no such thing as a ‘budget’ space movie. Gravity is the lowest one I could find and that was $100 million and that just took place around Earth’s orbit. Not a single space battle and LOTS of talking lol. So this idea if you just make these movies with a lot of talking and less action and explosions will get you to a $50 million film is pretty unrealistic because you still have to make a film that will have a quality look and feel for today’s audience and thats going to cost money no matter what you do.

In fact I tried to find a space movie that actually cost around $50 million in any year and the most recent I could find was Galaxy Quest lol. That cost $45 million in 1999. If you inflate that up to 2017 dollars even that film would cost $75-80 million today.

For giggles, the question remains, could you make a Trek movie for 50MM, give or take a few bucks? Probably – find some loose Trek thread floating around out there, say a Talosian based movie based solely on them creating some illusion Kirk has to figure out in 20th century earth, or some TNG based morality tale that actually challenges a status quo in the Federation. You’ve seen enough comments here that what at least some people are pining for are epic space battles – not a drama that happens to be based in the Trek universe. So, does that satisfy the tentpole fan base, or are they just stand alone castoff movies?

Good question. And sure CAN it be done, of course the PROBLEM is that people are just naturally over looking a $50 million film is just going to look much cheaper and less quality than a bigger one in the effects department alone. I’m sure there are plenty of people who don’t mind ships to look more fake or space battles dwindled. The fact is CGI on TV definitely doesn’t look as great (although pretty good) and we deal with that. But the difference is we’re not paying the money we do to watch a film so the expectations are just always higher. Thats what these people are missing. They think too much like fanboys, not like consumers.

And I’m a fanboy. Sure I would go see a $50 million Trek film, no problem as long as it has a strong story and interesting characters. But I highly doubt I will be able to convince my family to see it when you got stuff like Marvel and Star Wars to compete with and thats the issue.

But I think people are really naive as if movies just haven’t gotten more expensive in general. Of course they have, because the technology has just gotten better but that costs money. I mean look at Star Wars. ESB only cost $18 million in 1980. Todays dollars that would actually just be $60 million. Do people really think they could make a $60 million Star Wars film today? Again, sure in theory, but Disney didn’t spend $250 million on TFA just for the fun of it. Sure half was probably Harrison Fords paycheck lol but my guess is most of that went into a lot of effects and film techniques that wasn’t around in 1980. Stuff just cost more.

This is why Trek is better on TV. You can make smaller stories for lower budgets but still really strong production values for TV. For films its just a different world.


Well, you took your sweet time but I believe you finally got around to answering my question about whether you thought a close to $200 million budget was something a film franchise gets hooked on, and there’s no turning back: you believe this to be true.

I just look at LOGAN’s:

$97 MILLION production and simply believe you are hungup on gross numbers and grossly underestimating the value ROI can have, even more so for a struggling studio, or the $47 million ARRIVAL or $30 million DISTRICT 9 type of films can deliver to a flailing Paramount’s financials.

You believe movie STAR TREK to be indelibly committed to competing with space shoot-’em-ups and that upping the ante is the only way to keep it in the game of movie production.

I disagree. Besides, with a regime change, there’s always the opportunity that a new filmmaker will take it somewhere less likely to commit it to such mundanity.


I want to thank you and Tiger2 for entertaining my notion and taking the discussion where I’d hoped it would go.

LOL man I been saying for YEARS now I don’t believe Star Trek should have a $200 million budget. I have always stated personally it should be closer to $120 million, which is reasonable but can still make a decent film with.

But no man, it can’t be $50 million, thats just utterly ridiculous on its head. And yes look at Logan, its still $100 million movie lol. You act like its some tiny amount. A. Thats still quite a bit for a movie about a man who has indestructible claws and B. I been saying $100 million would be fine for these films, but I don’t see it going much lower than that.

But as said this argument is already a nonstarter because Paramount has made it clear in this article they see Star Trek as a tentpole film. Again, you don’t seem to understand what that is but the entire purpose of a tentpole films is to make as much money for the studio as it can. And thats because they rely on the films to not only give a huge bump in profit for their share holders but also to help finance OTHER films on their slate, usually the smaller ones.

I mean read the press release again. They said it in the very last words, “SUPERIOR returns” in that statement. That doesn’t mean small or modest gains as a small $50 million movie would bring, it means a film that can bring the biggest returns in the year. Thats what they are saying because thats what tentpole movies are designed to do: Movies with big budgets and marketing that will spur massive box office. Thats what a tentpole is. They wouldn’t even have used it in the same sentence as Transformers and Mission Impossible man. Check those films average budgets. Those are literally the three highest film franchises in their slate. Transformers is first, Star Trek second and Mission Impossible third. Movies like Arrival and District 9 or NOT tentpoles. How many times does this have to be said already?

So no as long as they want it as a tentpole film it will never be lower than $100 million. It would defeat the entire purpose. I’m not the one saying it needs to be a high production, PARAMOUNT is saying that. More than likely the films will be lower but it will probably be around what Mission Impossible films costs.


Re: I been saying for YEARS now I don’t believe Star Trek should have a $200 million budget

Strange, that’s NOT what you appear to be advocating here, shy of an hour later?:

“Yes thats[ sic ] EXACTLY the issue. Movie franchises usually go bigger to try and retain the same size audience back so in their heads they have to spend more to do it. ” — Tiger2; March 14, 2017 11:52 am


Man what is your problem? Are you some bitter old guy or something who can’t understand basic reading comprehension?? And man, you accuse me of ‘cherry picking’ but then look what you literally just did with my own post lol. Did you not get past the first paragraph when I said this:

“As for Star Trek, yes you said it, we’re fans, we’re going to show up no matter what. Most of us still watch the outdated show from 50 years ago and pay top dollar for its Blu Rays even though we seen every episode dozens of times already. Paramount has our money and knows it lol. Its the casual fans who are the issue but they also make up the biggest share.”

Or this:

“And again, I think boards like this really proves how much of a bubble hardcore fans are in. They don’t think like studio executives, they think like fans which story wise is a plus. But in terms of investment and company growth its a negative.”

OK? Thats what I’m discussing. Not my PERSONAL belief, just the reality of today and why they are spending so much money. I’m talking about the movie studios system, not my personal belief man. How many times have I said in this thread I think Star Trek films should be lowered? You are coming off like someone who either can’t read correctly or off his medication lol.

And make no mistake, I DON’T have a problem with high budget Star Trek films. Not at all, as long as we get a great film from it. I also don’t have a problem with lower budget ones. As I have said a hundred times now, I’m a FAN, I’m going to watch regardless. The difference between me and you is I understand the reality of movie making today and they can’t keep making small Star Trek films for yes a loyal but SMALLER and AGING fan base. Thats just not todays reality. You keep quoting me the 80s as a starndard and I’m quoting you 2017. Thats the difference.

And I also find it funny you just ignored my list of the average space film today. They average around $150 million. The cheapest is $100 million, literally double the cost of your dream low budget Trek film. Dude that tells you ALL You need to know, they are generally expensive period. Arrival and District 9 are NOT space films by the way, they are alien movies that all take place on Earth and in the present day. Big difference. Once you make movies that take place in space with planets, exotic locales and space battles things just start costing more.


Re: Funny

As do I that you neglected to include the likes of ARRIVAL and DISTRICT 9, and adjust the average accordingly.

A cherry-picked list tells more about the picker than it does the purported facts which it supposedly reveals.


Those are NOT space films man lol. They weren’t included for the SAME reasons After Earth, Oblivion, Independence Day 2, Edge of Tomorrrow, Men in Black 3, Transformers 1,2,3 AND 4 and a third of the Marvel films were not included.

Dude, a scene where aliens arrive from space is not the same thing as a film where the story is literally SET IN SPACE!!!!!! OK? Do you get it now? Do you understand the difference? Did Amy Adams spend any time on the on the aliens home world in Arrival? Did we go to some backwater space station in District 9? No you say? Well then those aren’t space movies then chief. Jesus.

And FYI, if you want to accuse me of ‘cherry picking’ believe me man I would NO problems finding five films with over the top CGI alien explosion fests for every one low budget alien film you can dig up for your losing argument as I JUST did, most of those btw waaaaaay more expensive than the films I listed in my original post. So yeah, let’s not go there. ;)

In FACT man, I was originally going to include the Thor films on my list since they actually DO take place in space. But I left them off since the main story line is focused around Earth and where most of the story happen in both films. That was me TRYING to be fair and to restrict it to primarily space themed films. So man, you may not agree with me but please stop trying to assume I have some kind of agenda around here when anyone can already see the average sci fi movie costs $150 million today because they have eyes and can google Box office mojo.

You’re the one who is trying to somehow convince yourself Paramount didn’t really spend $530 million on the last three Star Trek movies lol.

@ Tiger2….you’re heading down a couple of rabbit trails now, so I suspect we are near an end to this thread. Lets take a look at a couple different movies, Titanic and Apollo 13. Both were based on historical events, and the critical chatter around both was ‘what’s the draw?’, when the outcomes were well known. The draw wasn’t the CGI/special effects, it was the ability to tell a compelling story. All other things being equal, Trek has pulled that off with II, IV, and XI. Oh, all other things are generally equal, the base story of every Trek movie has been the brave starship crew saves the universe from some monstrous evil. No exceptions. So, can there be a place for Trek on TV? Sure. Epic theatrical outing? Sure again. Mid-budget franchise as well, of course….as long as the expectations are managed. Paramount needs to figure out how to better manage this property. The big budget movies definitely drove revenue, but at diminished ROI. A injection of new vitality may be just what is needed to freshen things up a bit.

Phil, I agree with you 100%. I’m only stating what PARAMOUNT is stating in this article, thats it. People seem to think this is up for ‘debate’. Uh, its not lol. They have told you what their plan is. And that is they intend to make big budget franchise fare over smaller movies because they want to maximize box office as much as possible. You only need to read two phrases in that statement to get that it: ‘significant tentpoles’ and ‘superior returns’. What else do people think those two terms mean exactly? You don’t get that by making 20 Whiskey Tango Foxtrots a year. You get that by making two Transformer type films a year. Thats the only reason why this thread exists now. People *I’m* not the one who is saying they can’t make a smaller film.I SAID to you that I personally would watch a $50 million Star Trek film. I have no personal qualms with that. I have stated over and over and over again SINCE 2013 that Paramount is spending waaaaaaay too much on these movies. I agree with people on this more than disagree with. I have no problems with a smaller Trek film personally. But guess what, I don’t run a movie studio. Neither do any of you. I’m sure in theory I can tell Apple to stop making so many expensive Iphones every year and just make cheaper budget phones they can still earn a nice profit with. Guess what, Apple isn’t going to do that no matter my personal belief. You’re confusing me the messenger with the message which are the studios and their mandates. I’ll make this as clear as day: PARAMOUNT doesn’t want to make cheaper films. NO company today wants to make cheaper films….because if they did they would simply MAKE cheaper films. There is no law that states every comic book movie has to be $150+ million or President Trump shuts it down. Its the studios who have decided bigger is better. Every studio is now going this direction. Warner Brothers said the exact same thing last year: They were going to make fewer smaller movies for their big franchise tentpole films like DC and Harry Potter. Thatw where they are all going. That statement wasn’t made to tell you Trek was getting smaller and intimate, its telling you the VERY opposite. And that’s because they have spoiled an entire planet of movie goers who are use to big, fast and loud and thats not going to stop ANYTIME soon when these films LIKE Transformers are making $1+ billion. Thats the golden ticket everyone is fighting for these days and they are going to high before they go low. Thats how capitalism works in America, especially industries like Hollywood today and what people are missing here. It has nothing to do with a ‘compelling story’. Is anyone here that naive enough to think Paramount cares about telling ‘compelling stories’? C’mon guys lol. Again don’t kill the messenger but yeah these movies are designed to get as many butts in the seats, period. Of course if it does that with a great story all the better, but that’s their SECOND priority, not first. Now the filmmakers who make the actual movie, sure, they all want to tell great stories but they don’t put up their own money to make those films and they don’t have to answer to the shareholders and stakeholders when that film doesn’t perform as expected. The CEO does…and we know what happened to the last one. And I know I’m ranting lol but its naive to think Paramount is going to suddenly please a bunch over 40 year old Trek fans who long for the good ole days of small Star Trek films thats made for ‘them’ and basically JUST for them is ever coming back. Guys, those days are as over as the 80s. Seriously. And WHY I keep saying we probably have better luck with the TV show overall. The KT films will be Star Trek from this point on in terms of movies. Now I don’t mean specifically those films but I do mean fast, big budget productions designed to draw a mass audience. That will stay in Trek’s future for a long time or they will simply not make them if they can’t build the revenue they want from them. But no one at Paramount is going to make low budget Trek fare for nostalgic Trek fans. They want the global audience and teenagers who they hope will take Trek into the next generation. You only do that but getting them into the theaters first. Paramount tells you that over and over again, our mandate for this franchise is NOT the same as theirs because guess what, we’re no longer… Read more »


Re: I’m only stating what PARAMOUNT is stating in this article…

No, you are not. They haven’t even picked Grey’s replacement, yet. You are only regurgitating the clueless ramblings from the new and still another distant and out of touch, especially considering there’s no one over there in charge to be in touch with, head of the parent company, Viacom, saying whatever it takes to keep its investors happy just as his predecessor did. Surely you recall Dauman’s epic clueless ramblings about his Paramount head, Grey, which got it into the predicament in which Paramount currently finds itself?

LOL Disinvited, I’m afraid you’re the out of touch one my friend. ;)

Dude, did that press statement write itself lol. My god they literally TOLD you what they plan to do: Focus on their big budget tentpole franchises by spending less on their smaller on off films. What are you NOT getting??? Thats what EVERY company is doing now. WB, Universal, Disney, etc. The difference is all those companies have actually made a lot of money the last few years so they can still make more smaller fare. Paramount will still make them but its going to be even fewer of them. They spell it out for you as plain as day. I’m only ‘regurgitating’ what they literally said lol.

Disinvited what do you think is going to happen exactly when the new CEO arrives? They are going to scrap all the Transformer films and start making Edgar Wright movies? They are going to hire Dennis Vellenuve to make the next Trek film? Guys, you should just be happy the studio still sees Star Trek AS a viable franchise, especially as Beyond tanked. A few weeks ago people were saying the film series might be done for a long time. Now we at least know no matter what they will stick with it. We just don’t know what form yet.

But its going to be fast and furious, no matter what I can guarantee you than. ;)


Re: …I’m afraid you’re the out of touch one my friend. ;)

Actually, I’m afraid, you are. The article makes clear that those words were NOT from a WRITTEN press statement, but from a talk to Deutsche Bank investors. Something more along the lines of:

And note, despite Dauman’s, the former head of Viacom, previous similar hand-waving prestidigitations:

Moving on to our Filmed Entertainment segment. Revenues increased 15% to $1.16 billion in the third quarter. Paramount Pictures launched 2 strong tentpoles in Star Trek Into Darkness and World War Z, which are on their way to nearly $1 billion combined at the worldwide box office. Operating results in this segment were negatively impacted by the timing of distribution costs associated with World War Z and Star Trek Into Darkness.

The next quarter will show significant profitability for Paramount, including from these 2 films. They will likely be moderately less than we anticipated, due to the crowded tentpole schedule this summer and the delay of certain film licensing deals into next fiscal year.

This summer [2013] just had a particularly high volume of tentpole pictures from all the studios combined, and that’s not going to recur every year. So that was — some other studios’ films were really shaken up by that, where they didn’t succeed. We were fortunate that we had 2 strong tentpoles in Star Trek and World War Z that did really well, one a previous franchise, one a new franchise. So we have — we hoped to drive the viewing of those 2 tentpoles for a longer period of time, to drive the profitability even higher. And the crowded schedule limited the run of a lot of pictures this summer, ours included.” — Philippe P. Dauman, VIACOM Q3 2013 Results – Earnings Call

Both he and the former head of the now headless Paramount, are out on theirs cans from their, now financially strapped, organization.

Dude you haven’t PROVEN anything lol. All the article said was they want to keep making tentpole films. Yeah guess what they will keep making tentpole films. I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say anymore?

The ONLY dispute is WHICH franchises will they focus on? Look I agree, I don’t think its necessarily going to be Star Trek that will be their big driver but again ALL the statement said its one thats up for debate. So I don’t even understand what got your panties in a bunch lol. I’m saying is sure they will make more Trek films but no we don’t know when that could be. But whenever they do make the next one its still going to be a $100+ million dollar movie because no one makes $50 million sci fi franchises today. Its no longer the 80s and 90s man. You guys have to simply realize that. Its silly to even suggest it in this day and age.

The only theory I have is they will most likely try and make one more KT film, probably around $130 million. If its a success then they will make more and yes increase the budget like before depending on its level of success. If it fails like Beyond did then they will simply stop making Star Trek movies for awhile until they can come up with a better idea. But whatever they make will always be on the expensive side or they won’t bother because as been said over and over again making small franchises is not what studios do today. Its just not worth it for them. Not with franchises. They rather just put that money to a bigger money maker like a Transformer spin off or something.

Hopefully we will get more soon. If not, they can take a break for a few years and just focus on Discovery.


Re: All the article said was they want to keep making tentpole films

You haven’t proven ANYTHING, either.

From the people that bring us the Oxford English Dictionary:

“A film that is expected to be very successful and so able to fund a range of related products or films.” – Oxford University Press

I’ve already made the claim that the ROI on films with lower budgets than what you can conceive do that. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, the most profitable movie ever made based on that ROI, already did that for Paramount:

Ever since, you’ve been making wild claims about why you believe a STAR TREK movie can’t be done THAT cheaply which seems to me to largely be a failure to conceive that some future filmmaker might bee able to innovate it, and the fact that you personally believe that all Trek film tales are inexorably committed to the framework and expense of a space based shoot-’em-up.

Dude you haven’t proven anything lol. Until someone outright says they are making smaller and cheaper Trek films, the burden is on you to prove that man.

Disinvited, you don’t seem to get it, every major studio is making big budget fare with all their long time IPs for about 20 years now. WB can probably find some future filmmaker and make a cheap strip down Batman movie or a more personal Harry Potter movie. Disney could easily try to make a cheaper Marvel movie with less effects and shoot em ups. Universal can go back to the first Fast and Furious film that was budgeted at $35 million and just make those movies about street racing again. Yeah man they can ALL do that tomorrow. They won’t. Paramount is going to continue making big budget tentpole films as they have literally always done.

This is just a silly exercise in futility. No one has remotely suggested they want to make cheaper Star Trek films, for obvious reasons you seem to ignore. Thats simply what YOU personally want, right? This is the difference between a fanboy wish on a message board vs the basic realities of the studio system today that has a bigger priorities in mind. While you’re at it, you might as well hope for a George Takei Sulu show as well. Both has about the same chances of happening. ;)


Re: Dude you haven’t proven anything lol.

Neither have you with your alternative facts.

However, I’ve proven that your claim that a financially strapped Paramount long struggling to be regarded as a major player before it got into its current situation, DIDN’T issue a written press release spelling out all these things you still claim commit them to do for their next STAR TREK film.

The only real argument you have made is that you believe that the market forces them to spend ever increasing amounts to make the next Trek film regardless that it’s ROI is ever diminishing:

“Yes thats[ sic ] EXACTLY the issue. Movie franchises usually go bigger to try and retain the same size audience back so in their heads they have to spend more to do it. ” — Tiger2; March 14, 2017 11:52 am

We may regard the the STAR WARS box office returns dream they’ve been following for Trek as foolish, but all I am saying is that a foolish Paramount that thought it was going to turn their STAR TREK into the next STAR WARS is in now in a financial situation where they can’t commit to the “go bigger” course that you yourself fingered. That leaves innovation, such as wondering why they can’t innovate a way to get a similar kind of ROI with Trek as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. You may well regard it as being equally foolish on their part, but I am at a loss as to why you believe one foolish thought is better than the other?

You then went off on some strawman argument claiming that I’m looking for some sort of return to 1980’s type film-making when, last I checked, innovation doesn’t involve doing things exactly as someone did it before.

The odd thing is is that despite these antics of yours, I think we both agree that the next Trek film’s budget will have to be for less. You’re just quibbling with me over how severely I think they can go and are still as likely to produce a franchise sustaining hit with an innovative director.

LOL! ‘Alternative facts’? Dude there is NO basis for ANY of your crazy claims. Somebody wrote here they want to see cheapo Star Trek movies again. I and others simply said why thats unlikely to happen. But regardless NO ONE has ever said they are going to make cheapo Star Trek films again. Its never been remotely implied–ever! Its just old fans stuck in the past who want to see it happen. Dude, its ONE thing to say you wish Paramount will make cheaper films, FINE! You can say that. Its ANOTHER to say you believe they WILL based on absolutely nothing lol. C’mon man. This is something Trump would pull. There is NO evidence thats anything they are remotely thinking of. You don’t say ‘tentpole films’ and think low budget. Thats the COMPLETE opposite of what a tentpole film is. Which is why it was funny you used Paranormal activity as an example. You clearly didn’t understand the term. The entire point of a tentpole film is that they are usually the most expensive and highly marketed films that aims to get both the maximum dollars for that studio and the widest audience possible. They are made big because they are suppose to SELL big. Thats the point. PA is a small franchise that targets a very specific demographic in the off season and obviously does it well. But its not meant to be a tentpole. Star Trek IS and has been for 8 years now. There is zero indication its stopping now. But if you think its foolish for Paramount to spend so much money on a franchise that has a low rate of ROI, guess what man, I AGREE with you. I don’t know how many times I can say this that I think they are spending too much on these films. But same time there is such a thing as spending TOO LOW as well. I think $120-130 million is probably the range to keep these films in. G I Joe 2 for example cost $130 million and made $370 million. Nothing amazing but made a decent profit at least. MAYBE the films can go as low as $100 million but I don’t see them going any lower than that. Paramount wants them to be global franchises and my guess they will stay above $120 million. And my ‘antics’ is simply telling you basic reality lol. Paramount spent $150 million on the first film. They then spent $190 million on the second. Then $185 million on the third. As far as we know the KT films are still currently the only Star Trek movies on the slate. We know so far they are planning a fourth one with Pine and Quinto who are officialy contracted to come back along with Chris Hemsworth agreeing to star. JJ Abrams is suppose to produce as before. Do you honestly see that film being anything close to under $120 million? I don’t dude. ;) Now things may change but AT the moment this is where it is. And last time I check you can still have ‘innovative directors’ that make PLENTY of big budget projects today. Actually whats funny about that comment you keep making is if you look at all the innovator and independent minded directors working on big IPs today, they haven’t made the films budgets smaller man, just the opposite they are the ones who adapted to the big IP tentpole culture instead. James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy), Taika Waititi (Thor Raganok), Rian Johnson (The Last Jedi), Colin Trevorrow (Jurassic World; Star Wars Episode 9), Joss Whedon (Avengers), Garth Edwards (Rogue One), Josh Trank (Fantastic Four), Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight), Justin Lin (Fast and Fusious, Star Trek) and on and on and on ALL started as small budget innovative or even TV directors at the start of their careers. You probably know most but whoever you don’t know, look up their resumes. Most of these guys were making small but smart $10-20 million films. Some just a few years ago. And then Hollywood noticed, snatched them up to ‘innovate’ with their big IPs. James Gunn for example last film before Guardians of the Galaxy was Super which cost a whopping $2.5 million. Then Marvel called, gave him $170 million to make Guardians and told the kid go play. I mean whats funny is I can’t think of a SINGLE small budget director that showed up on a big project like Marvel, Star Trek or Jurassic Park and made any of this stuff cheaper. Because its not reality. Can you tell me one example where this has happened please? Yeah dude no ‘innovative director’ is going to show up and make a $60 million Star Trek film lol. WHOEVER they hire will all follow the beaten… Read more »

Oh and I also said this before as well to another poster. Your idea that because Paramount is losing money they are going to suddenly just make these franchises ‘cheaper’ is ONCE AGAIN has no basis in reality.

Why? Because as I will keep saying studios DOESN’T think that way anymore. If the next Star Trek film can’t make a decent profit with a big budget, ALL they will do is just cancel that franchise and put that money somewhere else to another big budget franchise they think CAN perform on that level.

Disinvited you don’t seem to just understand how studios work today. Everything I am saying is simply based on precedent, period. GREAT example: When Terminator Genisys didn’t make earn what Paramount wanted, did they decide that Terminator 6 budget would just be reduced to $80 million for the next one? No man, they just CANCELLED it lol. Could they simply MAKE a cheaper Terminator film? Of course they could but guess what they don’t WANT TO man. They would rather just cancel the franchise completely and put that money to one they think CAN be a big blockbuster.

I’ll give you ANOTHER example. The bad Divergent films. The last one cost $120 million. It bombed completely. Now, AGAIN, the next film (which they had already scheduled) could simply be made lower, like $50-70 million or something. Are they doing that? NO! Instead they decided they are just going to turn it into a $10 million TV movie lol.

Someone decided that instead of spending $70 million to at least make a halfway profit with their final movie that its not worth it to them to spend that at all but reduce it to TV. So you have a situation where they will either spend $100 million for a film or $10 million for a TV movie. Apparently nothing in the middle is worth it to them for some reason.

Are you getting it NOW man? When I keep saying Hollywood doesn’t want to make cheap franchise films anymore, I mean it. Thats not how studios operates anymore unless they were ALREADY cheap like Paranormal Activity or something. They will just throw the franchise on the back burner because its not worth making smaller films with their bigger brands for them. Remember the first Terminator only cost $10 million in 1984. It started out as cheap as TWOK did. Still considered a pretty great film too. But you will N-E-V-E-R see a cheap Terminator film again just like you will never see a cheap Star Trek film again.

So yes if the next Star Trek film bombs with a big budget, they are not going to make it super cheap next time. Instead they will simply cancel the movie franchise for awhile until someone CAN figure out how to make a big budget Star Trek film work again. Simple as that.

Are you finally starting to get my point?


Re: … studios DOESN’T [ sic ] think that way anymore

I don’t know what you’ve been smoking but the current disastrous course that Paramount finds itself on had everything to do with the fact that around 2005 Brad Grey, who had only TV production experience, was hired to head it as part of Redstone’s Solomonic solution to his Frestone/Moonves Great Intraoffice War, and allow me to repeat, he had ABSOLUTELY NO experience in running a major film studio. The course he charted had nothing to do with what the other studios were and are doing as he had ABSOLUTELY no idea what that was. He invented Paramount’s current studio “thinking” out of wholecloth after canning Sherry Lansing and clearing house to implement the great “Grey Way”.

You have got to be kidding us when you claim there’s absolutely no indication Viacom/Paramount are going to deviate from staying on Grey’s current disastrous course when they’ve been clearing his house just as they did Lansing’s when the new Viacom ushered him in.

And all your examples of what often wrong Grey did in the past are pointless futile exercises as that thinking is on the way out just as Lansing’s was.

Are you finally starting to get my point?

Try again.

Disinvited, this has just gotten ridiculous. I have made this point as clear as I can. I will make it as short as sweet as possible because you really DON’T seem to get it and you clearly never will because you keep hanging on to the past and don’t remotely understand how studios think. Its VERY simple: Paramount like EVERY movie studio is going to decide what franchises they want to back and throw money at. Most of them will be in the $100+ million range. Not all obviously but the ‘tentpoles’ clearly. The only issue is since Paramount is in dire need as you said, they are going limit the amount of franchises they commit to. Transformers and Mission Impossible are a given, they will be here for years. All the others are on the chopping block most likely but whatever franchises go forward they will still be given proper budgets. Maybe a little lower but probably not much. The only issue is what franchises they will decide not to go forward on? Star Trek MIGHT be one of those franchises, it might not be, OK? The statement made it obvious. If it is, it will be given the same similar budget and marketing as its been getting. If they don’t feel its not going to get them the ROI, they will simply sideline the franchise for awhile and put that money to something else until they can find an angle that works….like every franchise that fails these days. That’s it man. Thats all that is being said here. I don’t know how much clearer it can be? No one is saying there won’t be changes from the direction of the last CEO, clearly there will be. In fact I suspect HUGE changes which is exactly why I think Star Trek will not only stay big but MAYBE even expand. What do I mean? Every studio is doing the exact same thing: using their most valued IPs to carry the bigger load but also create bigger ‘event’ films by cross promoting their IPs. Why do you think ‘shared universes’ are so IN right now? Did Brad Grey have a shared universe franchise? Uh, no! Guess what that was part of the PROBLEM, Paramount doesn’t invest ENOUGH in their big IPs and cross promotion. If ANYTHING the new person will simply invest in bigger franchises but consolidate their most important ones and try to get a shared universe going with various properties like they are ALL doing today…except Paramount for some reason. Yeah you actually made a point I agree with, that was the problem with Grey, he came from TV, he wasn’t thinking BIG enough. Thats the problem and now Paramount looks waaaaay behind everyone else. They NEED to go bigger man, not smaller. And why no one is thinking to start making cheapo films with their big iconic brands when the entire point is to build on huge franchises and shared universes to build on future sequels with. Its crazy Paramount is the ONLY major studio that isn’t building towards one yet. Universal, Warner Brothers, FOX, Sony, definitely Disney lol all have them or building towards them. Believe me whoever is going to run Paramount next are going to be thinking in this direction man because guess what thats what is making everyone else rich by now. But thats just speculation obviously. Whats being discussed at the moment is what will stay and what will go? We know Star Trek is at least one they still being considered to keep and groom, which is good news, but no clearly its not guaranteed. I think everyone here knows that. And to make this clear I don’t think Paramount will EVER get rid of Star Trek, sell it, etc. If they make another high budget film and it fails they will take a break but they will simply reboot it to something else in a few years. Exact same thing happened with Batman. When Batman and Robin faltered, Warner Bros didn’t just make some cheap movie a few years later. They sat on it for nearly a decade until they found a new angle for it with Batman Begins. And they gave it a BIG budget, $150 million. BB only made $370 million but enough to be considered profitable. TDK came next and that film got $185 million and the rest is history. Today Batman is as big as ever. And GUESS what man, now part of a shared universe lol. THATS how studios think today. No one is going to be making cheapo stand alone Star Trek movies like its 1985 in the age of Star War connected universe, Harry Potter spin offs, a $200 million Mummy reboot movie that will kick off a ‘monsters’ shared universe and now… Read more »


Re: Paramount doesn’t invest ENOUGH in their big IPs and cross promotion

Look, all I’m saying is until Paramount hires the next dude, you have no basis for absolutely claiming there’s signs of this path being followed.

Also, your cross promotion explanation neither holds water with STAR TREK nor the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE lock that you cite, because they don’t own those properties — CBS does. Its not a question of investing enough money as you assert but coordinating the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE and STAR TREK television and merchandising with CBS which owns them trademarks and all. And for that matter, they don’t even have all the TRANSFORMER rights tied up from Hasbro, but Hasbro makes a far better partner than CBS in cross promotion plans.

This is just another case where your facts don’t add up and also, why I believe they need an innovator.

I get it that you believe this to be a fait accompli and if Paramount hires some safe former studio head active in the current tentpole era that you describe, I’ll acknowledge things appear to be going as you predict, but, at this point, you are putting the cart before the horse and distorting so-called facts that you apparently don’t completely understand to make it appear a done deal.

Despite all Grey’s attempts to make Paramount’s tentpoles behave like everybody else’s tentpoles, we see them fail at the primary function that the Oxford Press says they serve, “…able to fund a range of related products or films.” As I understand the current situation, without a cash infusion from somewhere, Paramount can’t even do THAT. They HAVE to innovate, if they want to have any hope of navigating out of this morass that they currently find themselves in.


Re: …I’m afraid you’re the out of touch one my friend. ;)

And as you can see here:

“Movie producer Michael De Luca won’t be joining Paramount Pictures after all.

The idea was that Gianopulos would provide global industry know-how for the studio, while De Luca would serve as a much-needed creative force overseeing the company’s movie slate. ” — ‘Michael De Luca won’t take the No. 2 position at Paramount Pictures after all’; By Ryan Faughnder; LATIMES; March 13, 2017, 9:35PM

VIACOM’S placeholder, Bakish, still has no creative force at Paramount to implement your movie slate’s grand vision that you believe has been revealed. And Bakish, himself is unlikely to be in the seat of power to implement any slate when they do find bodies to fill those empty chairs.

Dude what does that have to do with making cheapo Star Trek movies lol. Yeah that was your argument. NOTHING in that article states otherwise. SO I don’t even get the point. Do you have something that says Star Trek will be getting under $100 million budgets or not? So this is much ado about nothing…but I’m use to that here. ;)


Re: …NOTHING in that article states otherwise

Nothing in this article STATES what you’ve been claiming either – THAT’S the point. VIACOM’s remarks were part of a live public relations puff piece targeted for a specific group of investors that you’ve misread and in the misreading misrepresented in an attempt to boost your future Trek movie budget claims.

So that’s just YOUR much ado about nothing… and yes, I’m use to that here too. ;)

LOL man my only ‘claim’ has been Paramount will make big budget tentpole movies and more than likely Star Trek will be one of them. Thats it chief. And nothing beyond that. You been the one hoping they take a time machine to 1985 and start making cheap Star Trek films again and pretend like thats going to happen just because a studio made 1 or 2 cheap one off sci fi movies. Thats all this whole ridiculous discussion has been about. Stop acting like its been anything more than that. Everyone can read the posts man. ;)

This is where we agree to disagree – I see the comments as an open slate at this point. Paramount affirmed their ownership of the franchise, little else can be inferred at this point. As far as the viability of big budget spectaculars go, if a couple of the franchise performers flame out (or fail to launch – Wonder Woman, looking at you) you’ll see some backpedaling on those projects in a hurry. Spectre is the cautionary tale – it made a pile of revenue, but rumored at more then 300MM in cost, it probably broke even. Clearly, MGM drank the cool-aid, and it cost them. There have been enough op-ed pieces in industry publications that Trek is plenty viable as a tentpole, as long as the budgets stay around 120MM.

Actually Phil I don’t think we’re disagreeing at all.

I’m more than sure Paramount will lower the next film’s budget whatever it will be. But it will still be in the $100 million region which I think you agree because, once again, no franchise has ever had that big of a drop in budget, reboot or not once they get to these budget margins.

Look, I’m just going on precedent and history here, thats it. Everything I’m basing it on is what the studio itself has done in the past nothing more. In fact I will give you three examples from Paramount itself: G.I. Joe, Terminator and Mission Impossible.

What many people don’t know or realize is the first G.I. Joe film actually FLOPPED in theaters. It lost money. Not badly but it didn’t break even. It cost $170 million but only made $300 million. And my guess it eventually made money because Paramount ordered a sequel. Did they drop the budget, you bet they did but it went from $170 million to $130 million. So yes, it fell but still in block buster status.

Next one, Terminator. WB got the rights and was going to make a trilogy of films in the post-apocalyptic world with Terminator Salvation. That film cost $200 million but flopped when it only did around $370 million. It flopped so bad in WB view they cancelled the sequels and sold off the rights which we know Paramount got. Now again, did Paramount drop the budget for their new shiny franchise? Yes of course, but only to $155 million. So it was still given a healthy budget and Genisys did better than Salvation but I guess still good enough since it look like that won’t be any tentpole for the company in the future.

Lastly there is Mission Impossible. Now to make it clear the films all made money but when MI 3 came around, it fell far below expectations. It cost $150 million but only made around $400 million, easily the lowest at the time. I’m sure you know all of this but Redstone personally blamed Cruise and his scientology rants at that time, tore up his contract, kicked him off the lot and told him if he tried to get back on they were going to call the dogs on him. OK, I might’ve made some of that up.

Anyway, the talk at the time was that either A. The films were now officially done or B. They were going to reboot it with a much smaller budget. Instead none of that happened. They ended up making up with Cruise again and he was back in charge of the franchise. Again they lowered the budget but only to $140 million for Ghost Protocol. That went on to $700 million and all was forgotten after that.

So yeah, if people think there is going to be some grand dramatic shift should really think again. Movie studios don’t work that way. I been studying both box office and movie budgets for 20 years now. In that time NO major movie studio has shifted dramatically downward in terms of budget for a franchise. They may shift down a little but most of the time it only goes up. And if a franchise can’t perform within a reasonable budget, they don’t start making cheapo films, they just cancel the franchise outright and back something else with a similar budget, thats all. Believe me thats ALL Paramount is going to do, decide which franchises will get the bigger backing, nothing more. They might try and buy some new IP or something like they tried with Terminator but its going to still be big budget blockbusters.

Ask the people at Disney. ;) When they lost TWO chairman in under 5 years between 2009 and 2012 there was all this talk the company was going to downsize, stop making movies like POTC, stop spending massive money on disasters like John Carter and Lone Ranger etc. It was a lot of doom and gloom five years ago and today Disney didn’t actually change their habits at all, they simply found better horses to back like Marvel and obviously now Star Wars. I remember one article back in 2012 that said Disney’s arrogant spending is what got them in the bind and that the studio may not recover for years. Today they spend more money than ever because they MAKE more money than ever. ;)

Thats all studio knows how to do today, just keep spending money until they get it right. It seems like a risky move for sure but same time how many major studios have gone bankrupt in the last 50 years? Seems like they are on to something.

Actually I somehow missed your last sentence but yeah we COMPLETELY agree on this. I have said over and over for months now (and on this thread lol) I believe the budget for the next film, KT or not, will probably (or should) be around $120-130 million. Yeah that seems to be the sweet spot because I really don’t see a Star Trek film becoming the big money makers no matter what they do. I predict they will all fall in the $400 million range tops and so far only 1 out of the 3 has even done that.

So yes thats where it should be. But you’re talking to the guy who assumed Beyond would be around $130 million since STID only made a $30 million profit in the theaters. I think we were all shocked to learn what it was, especially since Beyond didn’t feel like a $200 film. But someone said it was suppose to be $150 million just went over board.

As I recall, 140-150MM was supposed to be the budget. Oh, well. As a ticketbuyer, both STID and STB seemed to pile up FX that was unnecessary, either distracting from the story, or just expensive set dressing that wasn’t really necessary. Exercise a bit of discipline around the FX, and a good budget shouldn’t be hard to achieve.

Well I think Beyond just went over budget. I heard that said a few times here and I think even somewhere on this thread. People have to remember the production started really late compared to when it was suppose to originally start. So a lot of things was simply rushed and that probably include the effects which costs more when you are trying to get them done at a faster time. I remember reading Justin Lin was editing it practically 24 hours a day to get it on time for the movie premiere.

So I think that was the REAL issue with Beyond’s budget. For a long time it was stated that Paramount wanted a lower budget film from STID and that was the entire reason the movie was shot abroad in the first place, to save money. When Abrams made his films he didn’t want to leave L.A. and thats what added the costs. But I think most people were shocked to see it was $185 million when even I at the time thought it was going to be around $140 million. If the next one is $1 beyond that then they are idiots frankly but sometimes it just can’t be helped.

Sorry you were already saying that yourself. I read it too fast.

Tiger2, my friend,

This is my last post on the subject:

The world is full of people who say, “You can’t do that!”

And there are those who can and will respond, “Watch me.”
(with apologies to the Samsung guy)


Its simply a different world today. Its not just a matter of ‘can’ its also a matter of ‘want’ and no one WANTS to do it even if they could for every single reason here stated. The main one being there is no incentive for them to do that, period. Movie studios in the 80s have a very different mandate today. There weren’t 100 different franchises around then, studios weren’t trying to aim everything at teenagers and the global audience wasn’t as important back then. All of that is very crucial today. The only way to do that is to make Star Trek a big shiny object like the rest of them, not tiny independent features for old timer fans. They are no longer the target audience. Those days are unfortunately over.

Well this is good news but it doesn’t really tell us much. I mean we all know there will be another Star Trek film at some point, that was always a given. But are they thinking in the near future and with the KT cast? I guess they haven’t decided any of that yet but my guess is if we don’t get the fourth film there will be a line of writers and directors pitching them on the next big idea sort of like how these films got started in the first place.

If the next movie is back in the prime universe, I hope they go into the future, past the 24th century. I’d like to see what a 25th century Trek would look like with a new crew and ship.

New ship – new crew. 25th Century. That’s a dream that I’m afraid we’ll never see come true.

Spock – “There are always possibilities.”
Phlox – “Surprises sub commander, I believe in embracing surprises.”

Because it can’t be done. the 24th century is already too far away that we can’t make it believable or relatable.

Uh yeah it CAN be done. Just because people here can’t imagine another 100 years is silly to say others can’t. You aren’t the ones paid to do it. I wish people stop saying this silliness it can’t be relatable. Whatever exactly wasn’t relatable about DS9? WHy do people keep saying this as if its a fact? They made 500 episodes from the 24th century alone. You act like its 10,000 years into the future.

In fact Bryan Singer created a Star Trek idea that would have existed in the 30th century and it sounded promising. I remembered reading his proposal here on Trekmovie. And Singer is a story teller who makes plenty of relatable characters.You put him in a room with other creative people I imagine they could’ve made a really great show in this period.

The Human condition is always relatable.

Never say never.

@Harry Plinkett,


Yes so would I! That would be great. Let’s hope they make it so one day! ;)

I too would like to see that. I think it would be safe to say that the majority of fans want that. Star Trek was always about going into the future (except for Enterprise) not about reboots. I think it would be cool to see a new ship and new crew in the future not based on previous Star Trek or a reboot. Granted I do love Enterprise because it filled in a gap of history that was not told. Im a little disappointed that Star Trek Discovery is covering an era we have already explored. They could have chosen post Enterprise pre Kirk. Post Kirk pre Picard, or past the 24th century. So many options and yet it seems to be going the reboot option the way the 2009 movie did, a retelling of what we already know.

Yeah sadly they are trying to appeal to the TOS fans again. How is that working out so far? That said I’m willing to give Discovery a chance but I really hope they get out of their system with this prequel and then NEXT time do something more original and new ideas going beyond the 24th century. Maybe Discovery will have an interesting twist but at the moment the time period is a total yawn for me. I would’ve been OK with even an post Kir/pre Picard show but going beyond Voyager is really where I want to see Star Trek again.

Lol no they aren’t! TOS fans are dead dude, or soon to be.

I’m getting pretty sick and tired of hearing “TOS fans are dead or dying.” What an asinine statement. I’m a GIANT TOS fan, and I’m 50. Do you plan on dying at 50, Aaron? Or are you 13 and think you’ll be that age forever? Youth is no excuse for blatant stupidity. Grow up.

Aaron that’s really insulting.

Indeed, on all accounts.

I agree that the next one should be cheaper. They should have the uniforms, CGI models, props, and set pieces already, and story should focus on character not set-up for action scenes

Thanks for letting us know what’s happening with Star Trek’s movie home.

It would be nice if Paramount got a head that actually understood Star Trek, which most of the previous heads have not done. I’d love to see a Star Trek movie that isn’t supposed to be a blockbuster action picture that appeals to everyone but rather a thoughtful science fictional exploration of the human condition.

Well, maybe Discovery will be good. :-)

“It would be nice if Paramount got a head that actually understood Star Trek,” Exactly!
“Star Trek movie that isn’t supposed to be a blockbuster action picture that appeals to everyone but rather a thoughtful science fictional exploration of the human condition” Indeed. Hopefully that will change. For Beyond the heads wanted it to be more like Guardians of The Galaxy. No, Star Trek is not supposed to be like anything else say for itself. There is 50 years worth of Star Trek that one can draw from with regards to the formula for a great Star Trek movie, don’t make it resemble something else.

I’m not sure what the news here is.

Nothing’s happening with Trek, and Paramount will continue to make tentpole movies going forward as they did in the past.

Will there be more or fewer tentpole movies going forward? That seems to be the only significant (kind of) issue.

Really, it could be summed up as “Hi, we intend to make movies. Hopefully, good, profitable ones”. Other then the Anthony Pascale byline, there’s nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

The news is that Paramount mentioned Trek. Would they have done so knowing there wasn’t going to be another movie? Unlikely, IMHO.

Easily, so. Paramount has made a fortune off of Trek over it’s fifty year history, and will continue to do so if they don’t make any movies on the next ten years.

Not in this context, no. Paramount has made a fortune of a lot of properties. But these comments only seem to be discussing ongoing properties.


However, it is difficult to see how Paramount can implement TREK into their new fully integrated tentpole push as they don’t have the television/merchandizing side of it as they do with their GALAXY QUEST, for example.

It just seems, as they take this new tack, that TREK can’t possibily fit into this new full court press that they desire?

The news is that Paramount mentioned Trek. Would they have done so knowing there wasn’t going to be another movie? Unlikely, IMHO.

Well, Paramount owns Trek. So long as they own it, it stands to reason that they’ll be looking for ways to exploit it. Is that really news?

Anyone who thinks there will never be another Star Trek film would have to be completely clueless. There will ALWAYS be another Star Trek film just like there will always be another Superman film or James Bond film or Terminator film and etc. That was never in question.

What IS in question is when it will be until we get another one? Will it be with the present cast or a new cast? Will they continue in the KT universe or go back to Prime? 23rd century or 25th? Thats the real issue. Sure there will always be another one but the next one may not be another 5 years away if not longer. So yes basically it IS non-news. I mean its good to be told publicly they will keep making more but that was always a given. But that could still be a looooong way away but hope not.

I don’t see anyone here delivering Treks eulogy. The question isn’t ‘will there be one’, it’s when, and what will it look like?

Inferno cost $75m to produce, Logan $97m, Jason Bourne $120m… Paramount shouldn’t spend more than $120m on Star Trek, and should spend an equal amount on marketing.

Part of me completely agrees. Look at what Deadpool did. But a lower budgets keeps can hinder it as well. Means more one on one submarine battles like Wrath of Khan….there goes my wish for a scene with many Starfleet vessels like the battles in DS9. But all in all, I believe Star Trek would do MUCH better story-wise with a lower budget.

But you can’t really compare Deadpool. Like Logan thats a superhero with no real powers or exotic background. If your character is the Incredible Hulk, Thor or Iron Man for example its going to cost more because you have to rely on more FX to even bring those characters to life. Deadpool is literally just a guy in a suit like Batman. But try making a $60 million Superman movie and see how far that gets them.

Now no one is suggesting these films all need $200 million to do it with but I think people also have to recognize once you spoil your audience too much but then try to limit the budget to a great degree most will notice and not pay. Thats part of the reason why sequels usually just cost more as they go. One is for pay raises of the actors and crew obviously but the other is to go bigger than the last one or at least equal to the last film.

Look we’re STAR TREK fans, we are going to see these films no matter WHAT! But you can’t expect the casual audience to just turn up if many feel the quality has dropped too much. And if you slash the next film by literally 2/3rds its last budget its going to get felt for sure. Deadpool worked because that film started out small and people were fine with it. But try to just drop a Star Wars film closer to that price and watch the complaints fly. You have to dazzle people today, especially with these big CGI films. They can probably all cut back on the budgets, agreed, but the problem is unless they all agree to do it the competition will remain high and you need your films big and splashy. Star Trek included.

Well all depends. Super hero movies can choose to have exotic backgrounds or not, especially x-men movies, could be earth bound or another dimension. Also look at how big and flashy Iron Man and Thor movies are yet Deadpool is a super hero movie on a budget. Star Trek could do the same which is my point and many other people point in the comments.

And you have an apt point. If the first movie is great people expect the next one to be more impressive which mean higher budget. But that is only because a better story would not make most movie goers content. Im sure most trek fans would have no problem with a lower budget if the story is solid. But most of the low brows who go see the Transformers movies for the action want something bigger next time around.

And thats the problem is the casual movie audience. We Trek fans know a better story means a better movie, does not matter about the budget. But the average joe who like action will not understand that. Its need to be bigger and flashier. Yes that is the unfortunate state of movies these days.

Yes thats EXACTLY the issue. Movie franchises usually go bigger to try and retain the same size audience back so in their heads they have to spend more to do it. And even then most sequels are usually diminishing returns meaning they usually lose people along the way which is fine as long as they get back the great majority of them.

Again, the ONLY reason why Deadpool was so small was because FOX didn’t really believe in the movie and because Reynolds was adamant it be rated R since we all know rated R movies for big franchise films are a no-no unless its a comedy. But clearly it paid it off. But I think people can’t compare Deadpool because as I said it already started low to begin with. NOW when they start making X Men films themselves to under $100 million then maybe I can see a real trend happening but Deadpool is really the exception not the rule.

Everyone is making a big deal about Logan having a lower budget and again its because A. Its R rated so the studio was just naturally afraid it would make less and B. Its not a grand difference from Wolverine movies. The Wolverine in 2013 only cost $120 million. So yeah they cut the budget but people act like Wolverine movies cost $180 million or something. They always been on the lower end of high budget films.

As for Star Trek, yes you said it, we’re fans, we’re going to show up no matter what. Most of us still watch the outdated show from 50 years ago and pay top dollar for its Blu Rays even though we seen every episode dozens of times already. Paramount has our money and knows it lol. Its the casual fans who are the issue but they also make up the biggest share. Look at Star Wars, they have a lot of hardcore fans like Trek fans obviously but my guess is the overwhelming group of people who go are casual fans. Star Trek has always had more of its hardcore fanbase to go but the KT films was made to change that and it doesn’t look like they are going to stop anytime soon competing for them.

And again, I think boards like this really proves how much of a bubble hardcore fans are in. They don’t think like studio executives, they think like fans which story wise is a plus. But in terms of investment and company growth its a negative. As said studios want more fans and they also want YOUNGER fans to sell Star Trek to for the next 20 years like a lot of us started out. You can’t do that if you are telling small intimate stories for the same fans who were going to show up anyway, most likely over 40 and will be the only ones who shows up for a $60 million film. Thats not a ‘plus’ from a studio point of view. There is nothing to gain by that other than a modest profit. They think bigger, wider and long term. They want Trek for the next generation and they want massive appeal. The only way you are going to get a 15 year old to see these movies if they are big, loud and fast. If you are 55 years old craving for a slow ‘intimate’ film, these movies are simply not meant for you.

But they will happily re-sell you the old movies in new Blu Ray packaging over and over again.

Inferno flopped badly (possibly in part because it was too soon after Hanks’ “Sully”). And if people say Beyond is a flop, then so was Jason Bourne. I’m not really sure what your point is here. Big budget = flop and modest budget = flop? That just demonstrates that flop/success is not contingent on budget.

I don’t think the cost of the CGI was the problem. The problem was the writing, which needed another polish but there wasn’t time without delaying the movie even further after the Orci script turmoil. (Not the first time this has happened to Trek, see also Star Trek: Generations.) Another problem was hiring a famous actor (especially famous overseas) and then making him unrecognizable under 10 pounds of latex and with teeth appliances that made him hard to understand. They might as well have put a no-name under that makeup and saved Elba’s big paycheck.

Actually Inferno made money! Yes it was definitely a disappointment and bombed in America, but the oversea market saved it. It made $220 million total. Thats nearly 3 times its budget. Beyond didn’t even break even.

And sorry but have to disagree about Bourne as well. That film actually made over 3 times its budget. Its definitely a big hit. I think it just wasn’t the blockbuster everyone assumed it would be. Oddly the Jason Borne movies have never been HUGE hits but solid (The biggest one still today was Ultimatum that made around $445 million and the last one made only $30 million less than that). But because their budgets have always stayed in the $100 million rage so anything over $300 million is pretty good. Even with this film they were smart to keep it around a modest $120 million. Actually even if they had Beyond’s budget of $185 million the film would still turn a profit if just barely. But I think its pretty unfair to say that film flopped. It was definitely a success but probably just on the smaller side the studio expected with Damon back in the role.

Beyond started with a respectable $150 million budget. Bad robot couldn’t control it, and it ballooned to $180 million without really offering much in return. Had the film earned just what it did without the need to earn another $30 million to cover costs, it wouldn’t have likely been seen as a flop. That’s why Bad Robot won’t be back, and likely neither will the current cast, in the next film.

Wow I did NOT know that. I know that happened in STID as well. I heard that budget was suppose to be around $160 or $170 million but then the costs sky rocketed because Abrams added some scenes and because he refused to shoot the film outside of L.A. Funny they finally made a film outside of America to save costs and it ended up being as expensive as the last one.

I agree with most peoples opinions on here about lowering the budget and that CG FX should complement a movie not dominate it. As amazing as some of the shots were in Star Trek Beyond they seemed to be dominating the movie and therefore lacked in story. But Beyond was an incredibly fun movie and a massive improvement in story over Into Darkness. Into Darkness had an increase in budget from 2009 and yet it was the lesser of the two movies.

This big blockbuster CG FX is an issue that started with the big Marvel and Transformer movies. I was done with Transformers after the first movie, I’ve seen the first 4 and its all the same thing, visually stunning but incredibly dull and without great emotional impact from the story. Part of me has had enough of the Marvel movies. In the past few years I’ve become a bigger fan of the X-Men movies. They kept it fresh with the less bombastic Wolverine movies. Apocalypse was pretty good but its beginning to follow the same pattern, big effects that drown the story.

Star Trek does not warrant a large budget to produce a healthy profit. Im glad Deadpool stepped out of all encompassing status quo and showed that a great movie could be made on an incredibly low budget and profit beyond avarice.

With writers and producers aside, the second aspect of influence on a Star Trek film of the higher echelon (besides budget) are executives and CEO’s. I am glad there are executives like Marc Evans who have a voice for Star Trek within studios be it Paramount or CBS. Brad Grey was neither here nor there with Star Trek and Les Moonves of CBS just never got Star Trek. We all know Moonves’ involvement and views on Star Trek. Although its nice to hear him positive about Discovery, I am still weary of anything he says. Before Evens the last executive I believe who was a fighting voice for Star Trek was Mel Harris of Paramount who “was enticed to order his subordinate, President Paramount Network Television John S. Pike to initiate the development of a new Star Trek television series, due to the continuing success of the Original Series in syndication, now augmented with three successful theatrical Star Trek films.”

Aside from producers and directors the aspects with the largest influence on a film are budget, writers and CEO’s. Without the understanding the green light from CEO’s there is no film. With a high budget it could be effects heavy and rob the story and no guarantee it will be a successful film. The writers of the story and screenplay are bound by budget, producers and CEO’s but are the third pillar that determines the making or breaking of a Star Trek film.

This whole faux worrying about Zoe Saldana is becoming like broken record for every new movie and it’s ridiculous now. Let’s be real here: if you want to worry about the availability of the cast and how expensive they might become maybe you should worry about the boys more than Zoe since, so far, the only one who created any ‘problem’ of that kind is KARL URBAN. He’s the one who said he almost didn’t come back for Beyond and only did when they gave him what he wanted. And he’s the one who already said he will come back for more movies only if they give him something good again. Case in point: for star trek beyond Urban got payed more than Zoe already as he’s the third top billed, in spite of her being the third top billed for the first two movies (this should’ve placated the whining fanboys who cried about outrage and the woman ‘replacing’ a dude as the third lead, but I guess it wasn’t enough for some ). I don’t see you all ‘worrying’ about the possibility Karl won’t be available, in spite of him already hinting at that possibility.
You worry about Zoe who, unlike Urban, already said she would come back for trek until she gets old. If Paramount&Co can afford Urban a raise in spite of him surely not being A list or at Zoe’s level of IMDB page, NOR this trek’s protagonist (that would be Chris and Zach, but please don’t tell him), then I don’t think paying Saldana accordingly should be a problem for them. (*not to mention Pegg who now gets double credit as a writer and actor, for that alone you can bet he’s going to be more expensive than Saldana)
The reality is that Zoe is a woman and a woman of color in hollywood and that sadly makes her by default less payed than her male co-stars, even those less popular than her (and whose face isn’t that used for marketing purposes especially outside the US), and trek is no exception. The least they can do to not hit the sexism and double standard jackpot is not making only her popularity an issue now and, AT LEAST, not pay her less than secondary male characters (which already happened).

As for her filming schedule, that’s nothing new or different compared to when she filmed trek. Who knows when avatar will finally start to film at this point, but either way it’s the least of trek’s problems (speculation there is a fourth movie because so far, we have nothing real and sure here) because those movies are different and give more flexibility to their actors that’s why, if he really wants, Cameron could film all the sequels ‘together’ (the biggest issue for him and the reason why they keep being pushed back is how time consuming the pre-production and post production and editing is. Getting the actors do the motion capture thing is the ‘easy’ part for them).

No I actually think Zoe’s schedule IS a real concern with Avatar. James Cameron has already said its going to take him 8 years, yes you heard that right, 8 years to finish all four films. Now it obviously doesn’t mean the actors themselves would be involved that long but they are going to be in New Zealand for at least a few years. Apparently filming begins in August but we all heard that song played as well lol.

She can certainly find time to make other films but between Avatar and her commitment to Marvel (I think she signed 6 films?) is going to keep her extremely busy although I think Infinity War won’t take up too much of her time. But thats ALSO why you have actors on contracts to begin with because the priority is for whatever series they are signed up for first. If I’m to understand she’s not signed for any films past Beyond. I think only Chris Pine and Quinto is and thats the problem.

Now I agree she wants to keep doing them so thats a positive but who knows how long it would be to work her schedule. As for Urban I will defend him here a bit and he WAS all ready to do the third one, but when Orci left and the film got pushed back it infringed on another film he already agreed to do as well and I think what he was saying he wanted to do it but he wanted to do the other project and for him to push that one off they had to give him a real reason to come back. I think if there was nothing on his schedule he wouldn’t have played as much hardball and to be honest it ended up being a good thing because we finally get to see that trio relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy that was only hinted at in the first two movies. Having McCoy do more made it felt closer to TOS in the first place. i think thats all that Urban wanted.

But Urban’s issue is a good view of how harder it is going to make these films when most of the cast is not contracted and quite busy. Again I’m sure they will figure something out if Paramount really wants another film. They usually do but I think since Beyond didn’t do that great if too many ask for bigger raises as Urban and Pine did (he managed to get them to double what he was originally suppose to be paid for Beyond) then yeah it may be a nonstarter. And while I’m sure Saldana wants to do more I’m kind of guessing she’s going to want more money with that and that might be a bigger issue than schedule conflicts.

non issue here. If they can afford Urban, someone who isn’t at Zoe’s level and not as useful as her in promotional materials apparently (and isn’t the protagonist but only plays a secondary guy) a raise and they can pay Chris Hemsworth, who will probably cost a fortune and is more expensive than Pine and Quinto, then the heck we are talking about Saldana being too ‘expensive’ here. This speculating she will be the one with unreasonable demands when fact is she didn’t, that was Karl Urban not her. I find it ridiculous that people here expect paramount to give to the dudes everything they want even when they have little star power compared to others, but apparently their leading lady is the one who should get sacrificed because they don’t have enough money. Frankly, Urban getting more screentime than her in Beyond was everything but ‘good’ for trek, no matter how it placated fans with nostalgia. You guys should start to ask yourselves why Beyond, the most liked by trek purists and reboot haters, was the least successful of the 3 and why the first movie remains their most successful. Along other things wrong in Beyond, it’s terribly backwards and not very progressive and respectful of trek’s supposed ‘ideals’ for this franchise, of all the franchises, to replace a woman of color as third lead with a white man. For all the creative team’s preaching about trek ideals of inclusiveness and progressiveness, they absolutely failed where it really counts. The Kirk/Uhura/Spock trio is/was the face of this trek and was appreciated by critics and fans as a breath of fresh air for a franchise that seemed to be stuck in the 60s when it comes to the dynamics and a certain myopic bias for make dynamics only. Adding nods to the original trio too is fine, but making it mutually exclusive with the new dynamics unique to this trek is lame and stupid, and makes trek come across as the most conservative thing and going backwards in a time where, frankly, modern audiences can find better. And I like Bones but we have two male protagonists already plus a villain, and adding another white dude front and center is not what I consider a priority. I’m also getting tired of him making an impersonation of Deforest only and getting paraded around by some as the best of this cast when, actually, he’s the one who LEAST got the purpose of this being an alternate reality. And he only interacts with Kirk and Spock to nod at the old trio dynamic, which is a waste because that further prevents the actor to add anything new to the character that wasn’t done in the old thing and makes him nothing more than a recurring homage to tos. As for Urban unrequired diva moment, I guess fans love for McCoy got to his head a bit and made him entitled, but I don’t remember any critic seriously pushing for him to replace Zoe as the third lead, or asking the team less Uhura to have more Bones. And maybe as a trek fan himself he failed a bit if he didn’t see anything anti-trek in a white dude replacing a woc as the third lead after it took this franchise nearly 50 years to do better and be a tiny bit more progressive and inclusive in that regard. In either case, had Karl gotten a bigger and better movie role than McCoy, he wouldn’t come back. Trek is his only big franchise right now, a ton of actors would kill to play McCoy even as just a cameo! He just played his cards to make demands and ask for a raise (and got it because the new director liked him) which is in his right but, again, ridiculous you guys keep making it seems Zoe is the one making demands here when all the evidence we really have suggests that this is what the dudes are doing, not her. The woman is bigger than most of her male-costars and would be the only one entitled to make demands, but everything we know she asked was child care (and people here really showed their a$$es when commenting that and calling her a diva ALL THE WHILE they justify Urban for his demands and act as if he’s entitled and the new Tom Cruise. The sexism among di e trek fans and this site in particular is no joke) I also have to say I find it bad taste that both him and Pegg were big ‘fans’ of orci&co and their movies until a new team was added, and suddenly they have all these ‘issues’ with the other movies. The interview Urban did with John Cho where he jokes about not being in star… Read more »

We’ll have to agree to disagree about Urban since he was easily one of the best part of the film for me.

And I didn’t say Saldana was ‘too expensive’, I’m saying she and OTHERS may ask for too much money altogether since most of them are no longer under contract and thats the issue. Yes Hemsworth would cost more but you also have to remember all of this was being talked about BEFORE Beyond came out and flopped. Now that that film bombed everything is under a new light. Paramount will be under a new CEO. We don’t know what will happen and my guess is at the very least if they make another of these films they will want to make it cheaper. At least around $120-130 million so these things will have to be worked out.

Obviously its all speculation. The next film could be $200 million lol. But simple logic would tell you since the last film flppped, the first Trek film to happen since Nemesis there will be changes at least. The first I would imagine would be the budget itself because if they simply made a smaller film the last time it would’ve earned a profit at least.

But you’re right we don’t even know there will be a fourth film yet. I’m on the fence I think they might try and do one more but who knows?

And I have no idea why you are taking this so personally? I wasn’t pointing out Saldana alone NOR did I imply she would have ‘unreasonable demands’. But this is how Hollywood works. If GOTG 2 turns out to be an even bigger hit than the first one, and it looks like it will, her asking price will naturally just go up. Now it doesn’t mean she will DEMAND that I’m only speaking in general she could definitely ask for more money. But I also think she would probably be reasonable and come to whatever Paramount is willing to give. The real issue is will all of them do that?

And as I said in my OP, I was speaking about the ENTIRE cast, not just Saldana alone. I actually used Urban himself as the example of this. I ALSO mentioned Chris Pine demanding double for Beyond than he was originally suppose to get, did I not? So get a grip please. The only reason why I brought up Saldana at all because you did. I was speaking in general only.

You seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder over this. And it has nothing to do with her being black or a woman of color. And FYI I’m black!

@Tiger2 it’s not that much I take it personally as much I’m just tired of double standards and a ‘pattern’ I noticed in this site where everytime there is a new movie, Zoe being successful becomes a ‘reason’ to get rid of her or a reason why she will make unreasonable demands that could cost us her character. And yet, such ‘concerns’ are never expressed about the other cast members in spite of there being far more evidence suggesting that they are the ones making demands and putting in doubt their participation to future movies (something Zoe never did). Them there is the absurdity of questioning Paramount’s ability to be fair with Zoe and pay her accordingly when they 1) want to cast an actor who will cost a forture and he isn’t even in the main cast 2) already raised Urban’s, someone who is below her star power and popularity, paycheck putting him above her. Facts already show that Zoe is the least of their concerns and if there will be any trouble’ perhaps some people here should worry about the dudes especially Urban because guess what? he already gave them some trouble in that regard and he already hinted he will participate to more movies only if they give him something good. And this when he’s less entlitled, in a sense, to do that compared to Zoe. If they have no trouble giving Urban everything he wants and a raise in spite of his lower star power and his face/name being less ‘useful’ for marketing purposes than other actors, I don’t see why Zoe must be the ‘issue’ here everytime we have a new movie as a possibility.
I think the new contracts were most likely done before Beyond so I suppose just like Pine and Quinto, Saldana and the others had to sign for possible more movies too.

@Tiger2 also, it’s funny that Zoe’s popularity is suddenly a problem to some here, and these movies apparently need cheap unknown actors, when I seem to remember this trek’s problem for the studio being, among other things, that their main cast hadn’t became ‘enough’ big and popular in these years to attract more audience (e.g., Marvel) If them wanting to cast Chris Hemsworth is any hint, you’d think that aside from paying millions to one popular actor for one movie, they’d also try their best to keep the few actors they have (and make a good use of them) that are almost A list in hollywood, not get rid of them.

Do you spend your days looking for things to become outraged about?

Outside of Kirk and Spock, everyone else is expendable. The rest of the cast adds some color, but if Urban or Saldana isn’t available, create a new one. On a real ship, no one is on duty 24/7, even the captain. So, if Scotty is teaching Engineering 101 at Starfleet Academy, or the little oyster guy if off spawning somewhere, that’s fine by me. Just tell good stories.

This crew is too famous for Trek.

Trek made made stars. Not the other way around.

Don’t Litter!

@Phil I beg to differ. Do you really believe people would watch a movie only with them and it could be more successful than the first 3? Aside from the fact that Pine and Quinto aren’t big stars enough to carry a whole movie alone, and bring people in the seats, it’s over the time where people are going to get so excited about stories only focused on the ‘dudebros’ when hollywood has so much of that already and, frankly, there are other franchises that are offering something better. This trek already is more an ensemble thing and if there is any flaw here is the fact that the old dynamic still gets too much focus at the expense of, finally, seeing other characters too.

Give us a new Trek Film series in the 30th century or beyond. No more prequel series. No more reboots. Forward…not backwards.

“Paramount summer tentpoles from 2013-2107” – Heh, looking at other production companies and studios, I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually HAD planned their franchise movies for the next 90 years.
Just look at Marvel Studios or Disney/Lucasfilm with their bazillion superhero, Star Wars and live-action Disney-movies in the pipeline.

Hey guy, do you think that anyone would go for, basically, TNGs version of logan. Older versions of the characters after there swashbuckling days living the retired life but get pulled back into something. A very character driven peice with action growing as the movie goes on. A mystery more then shootem up.

That would be unrecognizable as TNG.

Actually, that’s not a bad idea. How many TNG episodes dealt with bringing back an olde character who was needed to help resolve some issue from the past as a storyline? I’d see this like RED, where some mission required them to assemble the old gang. It’s hard to imagine it as a successful mainstream theatrical feature, simply because there are no stars in the cast — Patrick Stewart is about it for a wide audience appeal outside of Trek. But if they were to cast some bona fine stars, like Samuel L. Jackson, as some old admiral who brings them all together, or a Chris Pratt as the captain of the Enterprise that delivers them on their mission, etc. It could even be fun as a conspiracy in which someone in star fleet wants to get rid of Picard, and the other witnesses to something, and they have to go rogue after discovering they’ve been deceived. With the right stars to draw a broader audience, this could make a cool December release which creates renewed interest in the old franchise while giving the aging actors a nice send off.

Wasn’t that The Undiscovered Country. ;)

So we have this Evans guy to blame for JJ’s movies….

I kid, I kid…

Until Hollywood gets out of its copycat mode and comes up with something original, the will hemorrhage money. Enough of the PC movies and get back to story telling.


If by PC, you mean stop the huge backward step in pussyfooting around about the “delicate” sensibilities of the international markets’ ruling leaders, I agree. I certainly didn’t live through the dismantling of the Hayes Code to cheerfully welcome its defacto resurrection in aggressively pursuing these “new” markets with surprisingly old, musty, and still nonsensical taboos.


If by PC, you mean stop the huge backward step in pu$$yfooting [It’s bad enough that it occasionally pops up in the ancient bot filter censor code here.] around about the “delicate” sensibilities of the international markets’ ruling leaders, I agree. I certainly didn’t live through the dismantling of the Hayes Code to cheerfully welcome its defacto resurrection in aggressively pursuing these “new” markets with surprisingly old, musty, and still nonsensical taboos.

Can we get a friggen edit option on here?

Posting from the bottom here.

But can we get a movie out of Paramount that is produced by a fresh crew?
Not too thrilled with Trek’s direction in the JJ Verse.

The no brainer would be 6 [good] episodes on TV. 6 on the web and then a BIG, big movie. With the cheap new cast going up against Hollyweird’s best.

Just write a good intriguing story.

I think that would rebuild Trek again for years to come.

Remember to click my link and DON’T LITTER!

i don’t see them ever going back to the TNG era.

The nest gen era NEEDS a reboot.
Great concepts, but IMO the sets were only a a tenth of where they should have been.
Same for the effects.

Sorry. I’ve been spoiled by the genius level of the special visual effects in these past JJ few treks. They were poorly written, but had awesome visuals throughout. Except for Keenser.

Rambbling now… but it’s a shame that we could not see Roy’s face through the makeup.

Then I don’t think you see the big picture. There’s a reason they went back to TOS, and it wasn’t just the iconic uniforms and names. There’s a sizeable nostalgia there, that isn’t quite yet as large for TNG, which has only been around 30 years instead of 50, but had a much wider global audience in first run than TOS ever did. A generation of kids grew up on the TNG era, and comprise a sizable fan base, even casually. Add to that Patrick Stewart is a much bigger star than Shatner ever was, to a much more vital demographic than Trek ever was, and you have a formula ripe for reboot.

Good point. Nostalgia.

But fulfilling that vision takes a true understanding of the original, and I think Gene stumbled upon a formula or meme in us all, that inspire us. Perhaps the Hero in us. I am sure many different qualities of the show inspired.

What I read in most of the above comments share a theme. Everyone is STILL trying to figure out what STAR TREK is.

Actually its quite funny. : )

Thanks CC