Another Star Trek actor has made a comment about the next Trek feature film. This time it comes from Karl Urban, who was at Comic-Con last weekend to promote Thor: Ragnorak. Speaking to Screenrant about returning to the final frontier, Urban said:
I’ll tell you if Paramount greenlights a fourth movie for us, I’ll be there. I love working with those guys and you know the fans love those characters. Yeah. It’d be a blast.
While a somewhat generic quote, it follows the same pattern of comments we have been seeing from other actors from the Kelvin movies in recent months. In general they are all waiting to hear what Paramount wants to do next with the franchise. We heard similar things from Zachary Quinto just a few weeks ago, with the actor also noting that a script was currently in development.
Karl Urban on stage at San Diego Comic-Con 2017 for Thor: Ragnorok (Marvel)
These actors are busy
Even though Paramount announced they will develop a fourth Star Trek film with J.J. Abrams as the producer, that isn’t the same thing as a green light, especially in terms of setting aside time in actors schedules. In April Chris Pine seemed frustrated with the lack of word on what’s next for Trek, noting he had to make plans. These actors are in demand and their schedules fill up. Chris Pine is in this summer’s hit Wonder Woman and he may be needed for the sequel which was just greenlit for a Christmas 2019 release. In addition it was also announced last week that Pine and Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins are teaming up for a new mini-series titled One Day She’ll Darken for TNT.
And Pine isn’t the only busy one: Zoe Saldana is already back to work on the next Avatar movie which begins production in September. Due to the plan to shoot four sequels back to back, she may be very booked well into 2018. And then there is always the inevitable next Guardians of the Galaxy film and possibly other MCU films in her future.
Chris Pine with Gal Gadot in Wonder Woman
Paramount has a franchise decision to make
As we have noted before, Paramount has recently been anchoring each summer with one of three key franchises: Star Trek, Transformers or Mission: Impossible. And even though last summer’s Star Trek Beyond fell below expectations, it was still their best performing film of 2016 and the studio has made it clear that they still sees Trek as one of their three key franchises. Next summer Paramount will release a Mission film and a Bumblebee Transformers spin-off. They have announced another Transformers movie for 2019, but the severe underperformance of this summer’s Transformers: The Last Night could change that.
If Paramount wants to stick with their pattern of at least one of the big three franchises every summer and they decide they don’t want to do three summers in a row with Transformers, then logic dictates they would want another Star Trek film for the summer of 2019. Such a thing is doable but they are going to have to start making some moves including locking down these actors, assuming of course that they want some or all of these actors for the next entry in the film franchise. Otherwise 2020 seems more likely target for next the Trek feature.
Paramount summer tentpoles from 2013-2017
Stay glued to TrekMovie.com 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.
Beyond was a flop, no reason to think another will ever be made.
Star Trek Beyond was not a hit, but it was far from a flop. That’s just the narrative being pushed by those offended by these films because they’re not exactly what you want. Go suckle on your bottle.
That’s not truce. I like these films and thought Beyond was the best of the three but I consider it a flop as well.
And obviously Paramount and hence zero movement on a film they ‘appoved’ a year ago.
You’re right in that it wasn’t a money maker, so in that sense it’s a flop. But I’m more referring to audience turnout, pure BO take.
Because Beyond wasn’t Valerian (17M opening), Bad Santa 2 (23M worldwide), or Ben Hur (100M worldwide).
But 343 is still better than most Trek films, even adjusted for inflation, and proves theres still an audience for Trek. The only reason it’s a financial flop is because they foolishly spent 185M on it, and marketed it like it was a Marvel movie.
Actually I’m pretty sure adjusted for inflation, Beyond is right in the middle of the pack, like 7 or 8. That may also reflect number of tickets sold; not sure on that, don’t know the source but I do recall very clearly reading that it was a distinctly “middle of the road” performance for a “middle of the road” film.
So you’ve proven my point, sir. Thanks.
@albatrosity — I don’t know if you’re right or not, but how much money it made is not the entire issue. The problem is BEYOND started with a reduced budget from the first two films of $150mm — but Abrams brought it in for $185mm. The ROI did not make up for the size of the budget, especially what it ballooned to being. If you want the real picture when adjusting for inflation, you have to also factor in adjusted ROI. Part of the reason why Paramount wouldn’t want to invite Bad Robot back is going $35 million over budget, when the studio specifically sought to reduce the budget, even moving it to Vancouver, and brining in a major Chinese investor to do it. Paramount lost money in every conceivable way on this film — box office, investment, profit participation, marketing, merchandising, etc. Abrams gets first refusal on any new Trek film, and why would he turn it down? He gets paid no matter how much money the studio loses.
You mean the crappy marketing they pushed out?? Worst ever, especially for a 50th anniversary movie. I enjoyed the movie a lot but everything around it was awful.
Agreed. I think the way the entire 50th anniversary was shameful and did a disservice to the franchise and its fans. Abysmal effort. And as for Beyond, I thought it was ‘good.’ Some fun character moments. Just watched it again and had no problem sitting through it. Unlike STID, which I will never watch again.
The fact that it was the best performing studio film that year tells you where they’re going to lay blame.. and that’s on the studio. They’ve corrected that with a leadership change, so we’ll see what happens. I have no doubt that Trek on Film will go on, but the big question is if they’re going to continue with this incarnation or not.
#1 May not have been a hit, but as trekmovie just reported here it was still their best performing film of 2016. That’s not nothing.
#2 As CBS agreed not to release any info about the series until Beyond was out as to not interfere with marketing, we can logically assume Paramount has to adhere to the same in announcing the next movie. Paramount it probably waiting for Discovery to launch to not interfere with marketing. Whether you like it or not, believe it or not, about Star Trek movie will happen.
it may have been the best paramount had but was still a flop that lost them cash
@pilotfred — exactly. Saying it made the most money for Paramount, when it didn’t recoup its budget is only at estimate to how much trouble Paramiunt is in, and why Trek is not the solution to their problems — especially this Trek. I’m pretty confident in my opinion that Paramount will not produce another Trek film wig Bad Robot or the current cast. Marketing restrictions or no, Paramount is not in a financial position to just conduct business as usual.
Yes but what always get missed in that argument is that it was Paramount most costliest film that year as well. Its also one of their costliest films ever, being the top five of their biggest made films.
@Tiger2
Ergo, the solution is to bring down the cost, not cancel the next film.
Yes and that’s what was rumored for Beyond and still didn’t work out. And I’m not sure bringing down the price is the only factor. G I Joe 2 price fell a lot but pulled in around what Beyond did. Haven’t heard about the next film yet.
I think its still performing a certain level and not just making a profit.
T5 cost $40 million less than Beyond, made $100 million more and the studio still dropped it.
Yep I just checked: G.I. Joe 2 cost $130 million and it actually made more than Beyond did with $375 million….and yet there hasn’t been any talk of another one since and that was now 4 years ago.
So again, just making it ‘lower’ so it can make a profit doesn’t seem to be the only mandate. They probably want a franchise that can really bring them in the money or my guess probably something around half a billion, regardless what it cost to make.
@Tiger2,
“They probably want a franchise that can really bring them in the money or my guess probably something around half a billion, regardless what it cost to make.”
Make that a billion dollar!
In a 2015 interview Simon Pegg said that Paramount was wondering why STID didn’t bring in $1 billion:
Pegg: “Avengers, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5bn dollars. Star Trek Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant. But it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1bn worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why.”
http://collider.com/star-trek-3-simon-pegg-says-original-script-was-too-star-trek-y/
Ah, great quote Ahmed!
I completely forgot what Pegg said but yes this is probably the true reality of the situation. They wanted Beyond to go north of $500 million, far north, and instead did the complete opposite. This is the read hold up IMO.
They want franchises that can compete with other franchises. Its not enough for a film to just earn its money back anymore, it has to be big, splashy, makes news, guarantee 3 more sequels, etc. Great example: The Spider-Man franchise. TASM 2 pulled in $700 million on a $210 million. Guess what, still not good enough and those movies were sidelined. Beyond made less than half of that.
We are living in the franchise era and we all know they only gave Trek these big budgets for the JJ films because they want their Harry Potter, Avengers or Star Wars. Sadly its not happening with Trek and I doubt will ever happen.
@Tiger2
Yep. One quibble though: movies are ALWAYS about making profit, not just “making their money back.” The problem is, the AMOUNT of profit they make now needs to be so much more than before. Used to be if you could double your budget, you’d be happy. More than that, a big success. Off course, the bigger the budget, the bigger the return they expect.
So spend $50M, they wanted it to gross $100. Spend 100, they wanted 300. Spend 200. they wanted 600. Now it’s even worse: spend $150 and they expect $600m. Spend $200 and they want a billion, and that’s just not fair to expect.
Star Trek will likely never have the drawing power of Star Wars or Marvel.
And there’s an issue for studio money handlers: they seem to think the more money you sink into a movie (whether production or marketing), the better it will perform. Despite constant evidence to the contrary, they still make movies with this assumption!
But thats my point. I think they DO want a franchise to have the drawing power of Marvel and Star Wars. My point is I don’t think most studios are just interested in producing $100+ million projects unless they know its going to be worth their wild. And for Trek, sadly it just isn’t. Back when the TOS and TNG films were around it was a very different system as you said. Today everything is bigger and more strategic. No one was planning out multiple sequels with dates 5 years in advance. But even back in TOS and TNG time, merchandise was still a big deal and these films don’t even have much of that which IMO is the REAL problem because thats what drives these big films, the toys. Thats the entire reason why Disney bought Star Wars and Marvel in the first place. The movies get all the headlines but its the merchandise that really makes the real money.
And then you got Star Trek thats not a big hitter at the box office and that has practically zilch in terms of merchandise. This is the same franchise that prides itself on selling as many useless T shirts, cards, toys and models every Trekkie dreams of. But no for these moves oddly and thats another issue.
And no I don’t think it IS fair to expect Trek to make a billion but it also doesn’t make it much of a priority either, thats the issue. Look I have NO doubt another Star Trek film will happen, but my guess is no one at Paramount is itching to make one again anytime soon. I mean it took 12 years to finally get another show. I don’t think it will take that long for another film of course but my guess is if a year from now we are still getting quotes like this from these actors and not much else in terms of official word it means Paramount has moved on and we will get another Trek film when they deem one worthy enough to hit the kind of money they want. In the mean time they will find other ways to spend their money I guess on franchises they hope could become the next big thing.
But could be wrong.
I think its pretty clear why STID wasnt Avengers in term of box office. One had great word of mouth. One didnt. One took a complicated plot with a huge cast and made an enjoyable film that respected the source material. One didnt. One had people in charge who clearly understood and respected the source material and the fans. And one didnt.
I’ve always felt Star Trek was ready made for the Cinematic Universe treatment but it would need the film and TV sides to be working towards the same goal.
Best advice to Paramount – hire someone who will write a GREAT story. Even if that story has not a single explosion. Get the GREAT story. So easy to add bang later. But stop hiring writers that write the big action, explosion set pieces first and then have to do mental gymnastics to loosely connect them via a lame story.
Beyond made a net loss of over $120m for paramount, they won’t be doing that again any time soon.
Marco, $120 was the marketing budget, not the amount it lost.
It was a good movie but certainly not the best of the three.
“Go suckle on your bottle.”
Really, Torchwood? This is how you talk to people you disagree with?
Just you.
@Torchwood,
Are you aware that you’re talking to a mod? In case you didn’t know it, Brian Drew is one of Trekmovie staff.
Guess you might end up like your alter ego, MJ!
Ahmed –
I actually looked to see if it was him, because the behavior is similar. Unless he’s moved across country, it’s not MJ.
You’re quite the charmer. If I see you verbally abusing others you don’t agree with again, you’re out of here.
I’ve read several of Torchwood’s posts in Discovery-related articles over the last few days and he’s gotten away with nearly a dozen unprovoked insults towards other posters, including telling one poster to commit suicide. I’m all for polite, reasonable debate, but his attacks against other posters really goes against the spirit of Stsr Trek is all about.
I asked TrekMovie why this allowed but nothing has been done about it. Another poster theorized that he’s a CBS-funded troll.
Yep, he’s called folks, including me, idiots and more. Trekmovie staff just agreed that yhe comments can be brutal.
Can we please dial down the jerkiness? I don’t want to go back to ghe says where Anthony threatened to ban anyone who made a joke, but can we avoid the personal attacks?
This ain’t the White House.
@Guest — he’s not the only one. There are people on see forums I used to respect, but no longer based on their current behavior. A lot of user names are on my do not read list now — speeds up browsing the forums considerably when I don’t have to wade through their insults and juvenile drama. If you’re going to call out one person, be fair and call out all the offenders.
@Jack and Curious Cadet. I’m sorry for not calling out any of the other trolls in my previous post (as I’m not a regular poster). But would TUP be one of the others? I think he’s the only other one that I’ve noticed.
Also, what happened to MJ? I remember him practically spamming these comment sections insisting that Cumberbatch’s character was Khan (Which turned out to be true, but MJ’s obnoxiousness was totally unnecessary.). I also believe that I remember another poster who only showed up to defend him.
@Guest – you pop in to make drive way shots at posters? To be fair, YOU’RE one of the worst here lately.
I insult no one at all. I explain my positions very clearly. I simply taker exception to people who dont.
Leave me out of your witch hunt, please.
Exactly! Hear hear!
*hear here
@Brian,
Given its production budget of $185 million ‘Beyond’ was a flop but there is no question that Paramount will make a new Trek movie. The question is Whether they will do it with the current cast or go for a different direction with a new team.
Beyond lost Paramount and it’s investors over $120m. That’s an epic flop.
Again, no source, just words.The only reference I can find to it’s loss or expenses is below, and the $120m they’re referring to is how much they spent on marketing, which is actually less than I’d guess.
$185 – production budget
$120 – marketing
$345 – BO take
Now, Para doesn’t earn all of that $345, the theater takes small chunk, and foreign percentages differ, so clearly this wasn’t a hit. But it wasn’t the “$120 million dollar loss” you keep saying it is.
Source: https://trekmovie.com/2016/10/03/star-trek-beyond-lukewarm-at-the-box-office/
From the article: “it would seem that Beyond is $41 million in the black.”
@Torchwood,
“From the article: “it would seem that Beyond is $41 million in the black.””
Guess you forgot to read the very next lines!
===================
it would seem that Beyond is $41 million in the black.
However, this is a simple expenses-vs-earnings calculation and, when it comes to large Hollywood productions, there are a number of other factors a studio must take into account, namely interest payments to their partners in making the film, and the actual amount of money the film brings in from each country.
In certain international markets, films only make a fraction of their earnings. According to the Wall Street Journal, Hollywood earnings in China can vary between $0.25 to $0.50 on the dollar. Based on Beyond’s $65.8 million Chinese haul, the amount Paramount takes home may vary from $16.4 to $32.9 million, enough to nearly erase Beyond’s perceived profitability. Many other countries, including Russia, operate the same way to protect their local film industries. The point to take home is that the total international earnings for a film do not represent what Paramount actually receives.
===================
@Ahmed
Fair enough, but it did not lose $120 (the figure Marco keeps citing), at least not by any measure I’ve seen. Who knows with studio accounting. Even the article isn’t sure who gets what.
After all, it doesn’t account for home video sales, merchandising, broadcast rights (that often sell for tens of millions).
Plus there’s the infamous “Hollywood accounting” where studios make big movies LOOK less profitable (not saying this is what happened here by any means, just trying to illustrate how complicated and messy this stuff can get).
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
Don’t count on it and stop being a Debby downer, too many people like that in the world. Try to be positive and uplifting. Haven’t learned that lesson yet in 50 years of Trek lol.
All Star Trek is awesome cuz they all bring something different to the table. And that’s what Star Trek should be, a varitable bevy of ideas, ideals and viewpoints.
I’m sure many people who dislike the Kelvin movies are also hating on Discovery. Well, it’s simply the style of Trek right now. If one cannot accept it, it’s solely their loss. I’ll be enjoying Discovery and either the 4th Kelvin movie or whatever else it might be.
But I do take a bit of pleasure that the haters are impotent to change a damn thing about Discovery and the Kelvin movies. Schadenfreude IDIC! Lol
Beyond was Paramount’s best performing movie last year, and the franchise as a whole has been very profitable. The question is will they make another movie, but when? As an IP, is the franchise better off in the hands of another studio that can develop it properly? There are a lot of moving parts there, but if another studio buys up the rights to the franchise, there could be a lot of action on the big screen shortly after….
Well put. Other studios had far less success with resurrecting brands the past 8 years, from Robocop (242mill), Ghostbusters (229mill), Total Recall (198mill), Man From Uncle (109mill), and the Lone Ranger (209mill)
They’ve had even more trouble trying to start new ones, like John Carter (284mill), Jupiter Ascending (183mill), Tomorrowland (209mill), and Cowboys & Aliens (174mill).
When you find one that works, but was expensive, like Edge of Tomorrow (378mill) you green light a sequel with a lower budget (http://nerdist.com/edge-of-tomorrow-sequel-details/). Pacific Rim and Prometheus are two more examples of movies that didn’t perform to expectations, but got sequels with smaller budgets.
It was far from being a flop. It didnt3make the money they expected but it got great reviews and was well received. Just because YOU didn’t like it doesn’t make it a flop.
In my opinion, it was the best of the 3 JJ movies.
Again, Beyond lost Paramount over $120m gross. With a staggering loss like that, reviews won’t make any difference, it all comes down to profitability. They catagorically won’t go down that avenue again. They would do better to sell the rights and be done with Trek.
Ummm… I believe I said that they didn’t make the money they wanted to make. But someone else even said it, Paramount needs Star Trek more than Star Trek needs Paramount. Maybethey should sell the rights… maybe someone else can make more money with it. But I firmly believe so many people were turned off by Into Darkness, that they stayed away from Beyond. That, and the lack of marketing for it. But I still think they can turn it around. Having Pegg write it was a very good call.
What’s your point? Beyond cost $185M to make and brought in a GROSS at the BOX OFFICE of $345M.
If they lost 120M, that means they spent an additional 280 on marketing, promotions, and such– 50% more than the actual production budget of the film, which is sort of unheard of.
I’d like to see your source.
If it’s true, than the problem is not with the film, but why they spent so much on top of production costs.
Movie industry finances are INCREDIBLY complicated. There are MANY factors– theaters take a piece, foreign distributors take a piece, actors have profit share (potentially) not to mention they MAKE money on things like product placement and promotional tie-ins, licensing and merchandising– so I’m always very hesitant when I read ANYONE say a movie “Lost X”.
The rule of thumb I typically use for SUCCESS is a box office take around 2.75 or 3 times the listed production cost. It’s not always accurate, but a decent measuring stick. Beyond was not a success by that measure, but what I’ve been referring to is raw Box Office gross, as a measure of whether the franchise still has an audience and potential for profitability.
Star Trek never loses money. Some movies perform better than others but, in the end, even marginally performing movies provide an endless revenue stream for Paramount. There will be another movie.
Bingo! Star Trek Beyond is another piece of content for the Paramount Trek library. Whether it’s blu-rays, streaming content, a source for merchandising and licensing (they continue to make money on comics, games, and books based on the JJ-verse), every movie or show is just more to add to that revenue stream.
I enjoyed Beyond but you are right it did not make it’s money back. Kelvin timeline is dead.
I really, really enjoyed STAR TREK BEYOND, but alas, I think the ship may have sailed if they leave another sequel for 2019/2020.
IF they do go ahead that far into the future it may likely be a “reboot” or retooling of sorts.
I would dearly love this cast and crew to return and continue on, and hope the movie iteration of TREK can be reinvigorated in the same manner the Mission:Impossible franchise has been over the past three films.
I think the smartest thing they can do is to trim the budget to 100-130M. Tell a more character driven story. With the lower budget, there’s much greater odds of having a financial hit. Beyond still made nearly $350M; while that pales in comparison to the likes of Marvel or Star Wars, it’s still WELL north of a lot of previous Trek films (even adjusted for inflation).
Paramount just needs to accept that Trek just will not draw in the huge numbers Star Wars or Marvel movies will. But audiences will still go, and 350M can still offer a sizable financial return if the budget is kept in check.
The problem is that every studio wants to be Marvel these days and churn out billion dollar blockbusters.
The real issue is going to be- if you want to trim the budget- the cast: they’re either going to have to accept big pay cuts, or move on to new actors and/or characters.
There will be another one with the same cast.
I have no doubt.
People are forgetting that Anton Yelchin passed away
Paramount isnt changing their global plans for a new Trek film because Anton died.
He wasn’t the first actor to play Pavel Chekov. No reason at all that Paramount can’t recast the role.
They could even do something clever, like have Walter Koenig return as Chekov. Have a framing sequence with Chekov narrating the story from 50 years in the future, and then we see the new actor portraying Chekov.
I’m not sure if the cast is really the biggest part of the budget of these movies. Does anybody know what Pine, Saldana and Co made on the last ones? From what I heard they were quite “cheap” when the rebooted Treks started. Of course, at least some of them have gotten more famous since then. On the other hand, the actors’ salaries are also linked to the expected return for the studio, and with Beyond underperformming, the studio could argue that they just don’t pull in enough viewers to warrant a giant pay cheque.
Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto earned 6M for Beyond. Saldana only very slightly less. They are surely going to ask for raises for a sequel (especially given Pine’s success in Wonder Woman). I’d wager the cast alone could cost $30-35M all told, and while that’s not the LARGEST chunk of the budget, it makes a huge dent in their profit.
Consider Beyond– add $30M to the BO take and it’s probably enough to make a sequel more likely.
Pine and Quinto are already signed for a 4th movie….there was an announcement around the time Beyond came out.
Signed just means they arrange financial terms, the studio doesn’t have to use them. Actors are often signed to multi-picture deals, for example, and then the studio decides “nah we want to go a different direction.”
Basically, it sets terms early, should they want to use them, which can be good for both sides. This way, if Pine becomes a hot commodity, he’s still locked in at a certain price, and has to be available should they green light a film and want to use him; for Pine, if his career suddenly takes a nosedive, he’s still locked in at that pay grade.
But neither is locked into doing the film or being used. Paramount could still choose to go another direction, recast, or decide to not make a movie at all.
@Alan Light,
That really means nothing in Hollywood until they actually start filming.
Before the opening of ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’, Sony made an announcement about two more sequels with release dates in 2016 & 2018. Andrew Garfield & the director also signed for the sequels. And then ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’ was released and it didn’t bring in the numbers that Sony was looking for and the whole project was shelved.
Yes and also don’t forget Paramount announced two more Terminator films and the cast was signed for all three films. Ywah…
Also remember Terminator Genisys also cost less than Beyond but made $100 million more.
Nothing is ever guaranteed in Hollywood.
And maybe you’re right, maybe they don’t warrant those paychecks. But they can make that money elsewhere, so they’ll surely require it. Saldana has Avatar and Guardians of the Galaxy, where she can earn upwards of 6-10M. Pine has the Wonder Woman sequel, likewise.
So for them it’s not “how much do I help Trek make at the box office” so much as it is “how much am I worth on the open market?”
Perhaps they’d work with CBS to license a film made in the Discovery period (Prime Timeline). The visuals of Discovery would certainly work cinematic on the big screen.
Then they have some cross promotion.
I’d suspect the marketing gurus would have a hard time ignoring a time travel story since that seems to be among the best Trek films. So if you fix the timeline, visit Discovery, and utilize Shatner as Kirk, there you go.
I think you guys forget that Pine and Quinto have already renegotiated their earnings for film 4 and that, as reported on this site, it will be significantly more than they once earned. I’m not anticipating a fourth film.
@albatrosity — yup. But their salaries aren’t really the main issue here. It’s Bad Robots inability to bring a film in under budget. Add to that the ever increasing stars salaries from film to film, and the Trek films have simply gotten to be too expensive for the audiences they bring in. Even the prospect of Chris Hemsworth returning is likely not going to be enough to guarantee box office, given the performance of other films Hemsworth has appeared in outside of Marvel, and he is without a doubt going to increase the budget. Add to that Paramount is losing major international investors making gambling with Trek as a tentpole with the same cast and producers who have failed to produce substantial returns with the last two films, a poor proposition. DISC is going to change the Trek narrative, making Paramount’s efforts even riskier. Keep in mind also, Paramount was almost a division of CBS. There’s a new regime in charge and it’s in their interest to work with CBS, rather than defy them, given their precarious finanancial situation; so continuing a timeline that doesn’t fit with Prime canon doesn’t really make sense. Paramount should be looking at a reboot of Trek once their back on their feet after investing in their tried and true tentpoles of Mission Impossible and Transformers.
IN 2016– STAR TREK BEYOND WAS THEIR HIGHEST GROSSING FILM with 343m gross! Their #2 film, The Arrival, only grossed 203M ww, on a 100m budget. Other films included:
TMNT 2 (205M ww, 185m budget)
Jack Reacher 2 (202ww)
10 Cloverfield (110 ww)
Fact is, Paramount NEEDS Trek more than Trek needs movies. Paramount has so few recognizable properties, bankable names that have a built-in audience. A franchise that they can count on for $250-350M at the box office is incredibly valuable to them.
This year, their films include:
Ghost in the Shell (170M ww)
Baywatch (175 ww)
Monster Trucks (65M ww)
Only XXX3 and Transformers 5 did better than 200M. Paramount WILL green light a new movie. It’s just a matter of how they can turn it into a moneymaker
Beyond did not make $350m, it LOST $120m gross once all the bills and investors were paid.
Please cite your source. When I say “make” I am talking about gross at the box office. I am not referring to profit. But I have not heard the 120m loss anywhere.
The truth is, nobody but Paramount ever really knows how much money a project makes or loses, considering all of the moving financial parts, from licensing deals, merchandising, promotions, product placement, sponsorships, theater takes, foreign distributor cuts, etc.
Its also hard to compute losses so specifically when you also have to factor in Home Video release, and selling it to broadcast partners. Money comes in for awhile.
I think they can make more money for Star Trek and reduce the budget. They badly need good writers though. Its really tough because they need someone to be in charge who gets it but Paramount likely thought they had that person in JJ/Orci and they clearly didnt.
But poor writing helped sink the film franchise this time around. A smaller budget, better writing, more efficient use of the flash bangs and you likely get a few bucks in your pocket at the end of the day.
The Paramount suits are probably waiting to see what kind of numbers Disco will pull in and will try to ride that wave if it’s a hit
I think that’s a distinct possibility. If Discovery is a big hit they could move forward with a bit more confidence knowing the brand is alive and well; if it is a big nothing, they may opt to make a lower budgeted movie.
But another Trek film WILL happen. The audience is there. It just remains to be seen a) when it happens b) what the budget will be c) if it’s a continuation of JJ’s series or not.
Key word is IF. Paramount has been stringing us along for a year now as to whether or not this film will be made. Logically it makes sense that they want to preserve one of their core franchises and continue with the series. But logistically, it seems like less and less of a possibility — are fans really gonna wait another four years between pictures for a 2020 release? The entire franchise will look different then, given the twin pillars of Discovery and, to a lesser extent, Orville reinvigorating the Trek on TV landscape. These actors are too big to be hamstrung by the middling profits of these Trek films, and given how quickly their schedules are filling up [Zoe’s in particular — I sincerely doubt they would move forward without her, given that she’s the lone female on the cast], it just seems unlikely that a fourth film will move forward if Paramount continues to delay the decision like this.
I enjoyed Beyond; despite some missteps like that silly opening I thought it was the closest in tone to the original show and TOS movies.
That said I think Paramount really needs to rethink how they market these Trek movies. The previews were positively schizophrenic as they went from that ridiculous teaser (first impressions do matter) to the more serious tone of the later trailers. By that point I think a lot of people really didn’t know what to make of it and stayed away.
I also think they need to better consider when to release the movie, with more consideration to what will be opening and playing around it.
They also need to better utilize their guest cast. What was the point of casting a recognizable actor like Idris Elba as your villain, only to then cover him in makeup and make him unrecognizable for 90% of the shoot while also making him nearly unintelligible a lot of the time.
At the end of the day, marketing failed to create any buzz for this movie and I think that, more than anything else, is what failed it.
@TonyD — the point of casting Elba is the same for any heavily makeup clad character — you need a good actor who can translate the performance through the makeup. That said, I agree from a marketing standpoint he was mostly wasted, especially since they decided to make his reveal a major surprise, when it really wasn’t.
I agree 100% with what you’re saying. They need to rethink how they make and market these films and accept that they’ll never be a billion dollar franchise (or likely never, particularly with the current trend of anti-intellectualism sweeping the world– and this very website).
As for Elba, I think they wanted a solid actor with a known name, but I agree that under all the make up, what’s the point? Plenty of other, lesser known actors who could do the job beneath the make up, and wouldn’t have cost as much.
Would have much rather seen Elba as a Kang.
I think the marketing was bi-polar in a way too. The teasers seemed aimed at a non-Trek audience while the actors and producers were speaking to Trek fans about how it would be closer to a TOS episode. The two were at odds.
I’d like to see a new writer. Beyond was a simpler plot so its mistakes and stupidity didnt take it off the rails like STID did but it was still chalk full of stupidity.
That opening scene should never have made it out of the editing room. It set the tone for the whole film as a complete joke.
They tried to tell a human story about the villain and hid Elba under all that make up and prosthetic and a stupid story because they wanted to preserve a “twist” to the story. bleh
Not a big deal, just pointing out a typo in the dates under the movie posters (2107 vs 2017)
I loved all the Star Trek Movies, much better then the same old crap with the Transformers.
No! No more!
Yes! Yes more!
I’d see it only if it were a “finale” film where they realize this alternate universe they’ve created needs to be closed. Avery Brooks strolls in with the Prophets, bing bang boom, and close with Patrick Stewart sipping his Earl Grey in 2409 with the Enterprise – F about to be commissioned.
Live long and good bye JJ Verse
[SPOILER OBSERVATION] It’s hard to see how Chris Pine would be involved in another Wonder Woman sequel unless it somehow involved time travel and him being rescued from being vaporized in the exploding plane he was in.
There is already talk of him returning. It’s comics, I’m sure they could find a way!
@salt vampire — ha, poor guy can’t catch a break. But you know how they did it in the original TV series? They just had Lyle Waggoner play Steve Trevor’s son. Just jump the next movie ahead to WWII and bobs your uncle, or Stevens your son!
That would be a viable way of bringing him back.
Well, as we’ve seen in Trek on a number of occasions, death is only temporary….
Isn’t WW2 supposed to be set in the present day?
If Beyond was a flop, then Nemesis was a NUCLEAR holocaust.
Another Trek film is an absolute guarantee in my opinion. It might be after 2020… but it will happen!
To be honest Nemesis wasn’t that bad because it ultimately did make a profit. My guess is so will Beyond in time too.
Yes… so many moving parts in how studio accounting works. Merchandise, promotional tie-ins, DVD sales, paid downloads, broadcast and even streaming rights.
Family Guy famously was revived after TWO cancellations due to high home video sales in the early 00s. Trek is a franchise that benefits more than most from home video, streaming, and merchandise, due to its unusually fanatical fanbase.
Bombshells About Discovery!
So, this wonderful present was on my YouTube homepage today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQcLLfzzKWA
This 30 minute piece of reporting, if it’s true (and I have no reason to believe that it isn’t) drops a number of bombshells about DSC. It all makes perfect sense, given what we know about the CBS/Paramount relationship, the Paramount/Bad Robot Trek movies, and the (curious, IMO) marketing of DSC to-date.
This report is so mind-blowing that I’m not sure where to begin. I’ll try to do bullet-points in a subsequent post. . .
I’m not even going to watch this, it’s so laughable.
Torchwood
What, the show or the report?
* DSC is being made under the Paramount/Bad Robot alternate movie license, not under the original CBS “Star Trek” license.
* And this is why DSC visually resembles the Bad Robot Trek movies, and why Alex Kurtzman is the person in charge of the show (because Bad Robot is producing DSC).
* The Paramount/Bad Robot license (that the aforesaid parties secured to make the three BR Trek movies) grants those parties the right to produce TV content for distribution by CBS.
* Per the Paramount/Bad Robot license, DSC may not visually resemble Prime Universe Star Trek nor be continuous with (i.e. commercially mistakable for) Prime Universe Star Trek. According to the Midnight’s Edge report, DSC will comprise its own, self-contained alternate “universe,” in that it will not be a logical prequel to, nor will it “line up with,” Prime Trek canon nor with Bad Robot Trek. Basically: what happens in DSC stays in DSC.
* Nick Meyer is working on a second, separate Trek series for CBS under the original Trek license. (This was reported in June by Screen Rant: http://screenrant.com/star-trek-movie-tv-show-nicholas-meyer/)
*** (This last bit is reported as a rumor/leak): CBS is planing for DSC to be poorly received, in which case it will be cancelled after Season 1, re-branded as a Star Trek “Anthology,” and effectively replaced with Nick Meyers original-license Trek TV series. Most fascinating about this last bit is that revisits one of the Paramobius rumors from 2016 (recall he said that CBS was planning some sort of Trek “Anthology”) the majority of which have borne out true.
Another interesting bit in the report is that (as many of us here suspected), Bryan Fuller’s departure from DSC was actually due to him clashing with CBS head Les Moonves. And, thus (as several of us here opined at the time), that whole story about Fuller just not having enough time for DSC, what with all of his other projects and all was BS.
#1 “DSC is being made under the Paramount/Bad Robot alternate movie license, not under the original CBS “Star Trek” license.”
Where is this news cited? Is this a fact, is there evidence, or is this pure speculation?
#2 “And this is why DSC visually resembles the Bad Robot Trek movies, and why Alex Kurtzman is the person in charge of the show (because Bad Robot is producing DSC).”
This is based on #1 being true, which again, I would like to know if there is evidence or factual info to back up that statement.
#3 “The Paramount/Bad Robot license (that the aforesaid parties secured to make the three BR Trek movies) grants those parties the right to produce TV content for distribution by CBS.”
See above.
#4 “Per the Paramount/Bad Robot license, DSC may not visually resemble Prime Universe Star Trek nor be continuous with (i.e. commercially mistakable for) Prime Universe Star Trek. According to the Midnight’s Edge report, DSC will comprise its own, self-contained alternate “universe,” in that it will not be a logical prequel to, nor will it “line up with,” Prime Trek canon nor with Bad Robot Trek. Basically: what happens in DSC stays in DSC.”
See above.
#5 “Nick Meyer is working on a second, separate Trek series for CBS under the original Trek license. (This was reported in June by Screen Rant: http://screenrant.com/star-trek-movie-tv-show-nicholas-meyer/)”
Pure speculation/rumor based on a cryptic comment from Meyer that he’s working on “another Star Trek project.” He never says it’s a TV show, movie, or even filmed entertainment.
#6 “CBS is planing for DSC to be poorly received, in which case it will be cancelled after Season 1, re-branded as a Star Trek “Anthology,” and effectively replaced with Nick Meyers original-license Trek TV series. Most fascinating about this last bit is that revisits one of the Paramobius rumors from 2016 (recall he said that CBS was planning some sort of Trek “Anthology”) the majority of which have borne out true.”
Speculation based on speculation. Meaning it’s pure fiction.
Now, all of this could turn out to be true, but right now it’s ALL speculation.
Torchwood
It should be a fairly easy matter to find out the name of the company that is producing DSC. There should be public records. I don’t see why ME would speculate about something that straight forward, but you’ll have to do the research if you want confirmation.
It’s not a matter of production company that I’m referring to, but whether it’s being produced under license in the Kelvin timeline, and that Meyer is working on a second show under their own license.
You’ve taken it as fact without doing the confirmation and I’m not sure why.
In my 5 second search here’s what I’ve found:
CBS Television Studios
Secret Hideout
Living Dead Guy Productions
Roddenberry Entertainment
Paramount Television
I do see Para TV there, but doesn’t mean it’s under license from Paramount, and I see nothing about Bad Robot.
Now again, this speculation could turn out to be true, but it seems like a big leap made upon big leaps.
Well, I turned up this…which is interesting
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/channel-thefinalfrontier/bad_robot_productions_owned_by_jj_abrams_will_be_doing_production_for_star_trek_discovery/
No idea what it means, but I don’t see why it would be a fabrication.
What we need here are the applied research skills of Disinvited.
I guess it’s possible, but that’s literally the only website that cites them as a production partner.
This strikes me as speculation based on one vague Nick Meyer quote, the authors dislike of Discovery, and the fact that Kurtzman is a producer.
Isn’t it just as possible that BR/Kurtzman were brought in because they’re a good production company? They’ve worked on some of the most popular sci-fi TV shows of the past decade, including LOST, Fringe, and Westworld.
Paramount has also worked with CBS before on shows like Person of Interest, so there’s a relationship there. Them working on Discovery could mean many things, it is a leap to assume they are operating under license from Paramount.
Could be true, but still speculation.
Torchwood
It does explaining all of the visual aesthetic issues: why the DSC uniforms resemble the BR Trek uniforms and not the Prime Trek uniforms, and why the released clips from DSC visually resemble the BR Trek movies and not any of the Prime Trek TV series. And why the DSC Klingons look more like the BR Trek Klingons than like the Prime Trek Klingons. And if, as the report alleges, there are no toys merched in support of DSC, that, too, will support the story. Because the licensing situation vis-a-vis CBS and Paramount/Bad Robot regarding toys is part of the public record at this point.
You can add a “but not really” after every “looks like BR”. Too many people are saying taking “looks more like BR films than TOS TV show from the 60’s” as some sort of evidence that its a Bad Robot production.
Similar isnt the same.
Torchwood
You’ve taken it as false without any evidence to the contrary, and I’m not sure why. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, I’m certainly interested. Please share.
Torchwood
I’m giving the report a fair amount of credence. If it turns out to be an unreliable source, I’ll ignore them going forward. But, everything in the report appears logically cohesive and reasonable to me.
See my latest comment. I see no reliable source here– it is illogical, incoherent, unreasonable reporting.
what’s their track record, btw? Are they legit entertainment reporters? I give them no credence because I am a natural skeptic. I am not one to blindly believe everything I hear.
I guess you are.
2 + 2 + __ = X
In this case, the podcast’s authors have put 2 and 2 together and gotten 5. Now, 5 could turn out to be the right answer if the unknown integer is 1, but they’re just guessing.
Torchwood
Now you’re getting into silly territory. You’ve made a valid point in saying that we could do with some research and confirmation. Let’s proceed from there, shall we.
Torchwood
I said at the beginning …if it’s true….
I don’t know why someone would put together such a well-organized report lasting 30 minute made up entirely of falsehoods that can be verified as such. Finding out what parties are on licensing deals is not my forte, but I’m sure that it can be found. And if it turns out that the report is total rubbish, that will certainly discredit them going forward. Why would they want to discredit themselves by falsely reporting fairly straightforward information? That does not seem logical to me. But, what we have here are more questions. We need some research.
I can think of a few reasons: they hate discovery and want clicks from gullible people who hate discovery.
I heard from a reliable source that Nicholas Meyer is actually working on a script to a new Trek movie set in the prime timeline, and will feature the long awaited return of William Shatner as Kirk.
In an unprecedented move, CBS quietly handed over the TV rights to Paramount midway through production on Discovery, in exchange for making this movie (with Paramount distributing the film).
This is all the result of Beyond’s disappointing box office last year, after Paramount re-evaulated Trek, and got talking with CBS.
The plan is for Meyer’s film to be released in 2019, and Discovery to transition to CW in 2018, which is why it seems so geared to a younger audience. This is also why Paramount TV was added as a production partner on Discovery late in the game, and why we haven’t heard anything about the next JJ film.
Now let me ask you… why don’t you believe me? Would you believe me if I produced a 30 minute podcast on youtube?
Torchwood
Now let me ask you… why don’t you believe me? Would you believe me if I produced a 30 minute podcast on youtube?
Well, firstly, your allegations aren’t credible on their face. It’s highly implausible that Bill Shatner would be returning at this point to reprise his role as Kirk.
Secondly, your allegations aren’t cohesive with regard to the known facts.
Neither are that podcasts. Check and mate.
Torchwood
P.S. Whereas there is nothing in the report that strikes me as implausible. It’s all consistent with what we know about the relationship between CBS, Paramount and Bad Robot, including JJ’s failed efforts at securing global merch rights from CBS.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07/30/star-trek-khan-series-nicholas-meyer/
HAHAHAHA.
Torchwood
I think we already resolved the issue of confirmation. You should take yes for an answer. None of what you’ve said since we agreed on that point adds anything.
This is better than a Khan series by far. So post it on YouTube and make it true
As for discrediting themselves, this happens all the time. Fans speculate, even outright make stuff up, get clicks and views, and by the time they’re proved wrong (which would take a year to happen) either fans will have forgotten, or they could plausibly say “well, things changed from what we heard.”
This happens very often, particularly in the geek-o-sphere where every fan wants to be known as the guy who scooped a story.
Why would someone put together a video of salacious half truths and lies that gets picked up by Star Trek fans and propagated? Hmmmm I dont know. Why would they do that. Why would someone who wants hits to their videos choose that subject?
Weird.
Cyg, stating something that runs counter to reason and saying “prove its wrong” is way way way beneath you’re usual commenting here.
I could say Discovery is being secretly funded by the Illuminati. Prove me wrong. Come on… If you’re going to state that with certainty, provide proof.
Reread what you wrote… cbs is planning it to be poorly received so it can be cancelled after season one. Do you realize hoe ludicrous that is? Why would cbs pour so much money into something it wants to cancel after 1 season. That makes no sense on any level. Seriously.
Cygnus –
This thing is fact-free. They have nothing to back up any of their claims. It’s all speculation.
In fact, it’s just been revealed Meyer’s “secret project” is a Khan comic book miniseries.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07/30/star-trek-khan-series-nicholas-meyer/
I will also add that a Khan TV series is something I have zero interest in. I mean, I’ll watch it but… meh. Always thought he was an overhyped character. Far more anticipating Discovery.
Still, more Trek means the brand will stay alive.
Am I missing something or does the link state its a mini TV series he’s working on…? A Khan TV show….hmmmm
Yeah I never expected his secret project to be that big of a deal. If he was doing another show, they would’ve said it from day one. They have never hidden the fact a new show has been green lit. Maybe sparse on details but been very upfront that they decided to work on a new show.
And while I like Meyer I still don’t get all the drooling over him. Meaning he hasn’t produced anything of substance in over 2 decades. And then someone is going to give him a show to develop? I find that highly illogical. ;)
The comic book thing makes more sense and keeps him attached to his most famous Trek project to date, Khan.
Brian Drew
OK, but their presentation is typical for these sort of reports. When this site reported that Bad Robot was not among the producers of DSC, there was no evidence provided in support of that claim either. We all just took it on good faith. I’d like people do look into the claims in the report. If it’s all a fiction, I promise to denounce it as such and never give them a modicum of credence going forward.
I will stand slightly corrected, as they’ve been updating the report on BC. They seem to indicate it might be a 6-episode miniseries on TV? I guess it’s still developing.
My point is, a lot of this could wind up being true, but it’s ALL speculation.
Torchwood
You don’t seem to be understanding a very basic point, so I’ll state it very plainly for you:
We are not disagreeing on the need for confirmation.
I think when someone doesnt post for a very long time and then pops in with an unsubstantiated hit piece, the motivation is clear. Isnt that an old video that has already been discussed?
I suppose we could talk about all the ways any TV show might suck. or we could wait 7 weeks and just watch it.
We’re not going to fact check some random youtube account’s assertions. CBS and Kurtzman’s production company are producing the show. If it looks like the BR movies, it’s because Alex LIKES that look, and brought something like it over to this project.
When we reported that Bad Robot was not part of Discovery, we weren’t making it up – the press info clearly stated the production entities involved. If Bad Robot was involved, CBS would be trumpeting it far and wide. All of Hollywood wants to be in business with JJ Abrams. They’re not going to hide his involvement just to ease the concerns of fans who don’t like his Trek work.
Apologies for that comment before Brian, you seem like a reasonable and intelligent, dude.
Regarding a Khan series: even if true (and I trust BC, who has done solid comic book reporting for years)– I don’t see them cancelling Discovery for it. We have no idea how Discovery will be received. If well, they’d be stupid to cancel it now, before it airs, in prep of a Khan miniseries.
Second, this Khan series is supposedly set on Seti Alpha 5, as a survival story of sorts. That’s not the kind of Trek Trekkies want to see– they want a ship and crew in space.
It does however, make sense if CBS plans to expand CBSAA’s offerings to entice subscribers.
Suddenly, $6 a month for one show becomes a lot more friendly if it’s two shows. Mostly, I’m surprised they’d commit to anything beyond Discovery so soon. What this tells me is that they are really happy with Discovery, rather than the other way around.
Appreciate it. I get that everyone is passionate in here – we all are – but I’ve never seen an argument get won by name calling. Reasoned, respectful debate wins the day. I realize that’s a lot to ask on the web, but I’m hoping we can have some of that in here. A lot of stuff is going to come down the pike (pun intended) over the next few months, and it would be nice if we can keep the arguments at least semi-respectful.
We heard about the Khan stuff a few months back when Nick mentioned it briefly, but until we hear anything more it’s just one of many tv shows in development in Hollywood that may or may not get made. And yes, it makes sense to have a second series to fill in the gap when DSC is on hiatus. Personally, I’d rather see a Eugenics Wars series.
Brian Drew
I didn’t mean that you or any of the TrekMovie personnel should fact-check the report necessarily. I meant anyone reading who is interested. Of course, you can and will do whatever you like.
As for hiding or downplaying the involvement of Bad Robot, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I distinctly remember you guys (Kayla in particular) talking about how CBS was concerned with getting the…what’s the right word here…traditional Trek fan base to support DSC. Which makes sense. Given the well-known schism in the fan-base, and the dissatisfaction with the Bad Robot Trek movies, it is reasonable that CBS might want to downplay Bad Robot’s involvement in DSC, notwithstanding however highly Hollywood industry people might regard JJ and Bad Robot. Or, maybe Bad Robot was originally involved 10 months ago, and that has since changed.
If that were the case, wouldn’t they want to hide Kurtzman’s involvement? As it stands, he’s been front and center in promotions, doing interviews, and listed everywhere as a producer.
Torchwood
If that were the case, wouldn’t they want to hide Kurtzman’s involvement? As it stands, he’s been front and center in promotions, doing interviews, and listed everywhere as a producer.
I was shocked when it was announced that Kurtzman was heading the show, and others were, too. But, Kurtzman, if you recall, was not a Bad Robot employee. Orci and Kurtzman had their own, separate company, called Paper Products or something.
P.S. Or, maybe all of these people are lying. It’s certainly possible; I just have hard time imagining why people would invest so much time and energy into presenting falsehoods that will soon be borne out as such, if they are false. Why start up a YouTube channel, spend time and energy, just to put together lengthy reports that will soon be discredited? I don’t know, maybe I’m being naive. . . .
There’s a well-known comics “scooper” who has made a career of speculating stuff in comic movies, and his success rate is something like 50% (at best). When he’s right he boasts, and when he’s wrong (most of the time) either people forget, or he will say “well it was true, but then they decided not to do it.”
And while some of what he posts is from real sources, most of his “scoops” are just educated guesses and smart speculation that he knows people like you will believe, because it “makes sense.” and he gets lots of readers, which in turn made him popular, got him clicks, earned him ad money, and eventually, landed him a job with a mostly-reputable geek news outlet.
For example, the video you shared has EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND VIEWS in 24 hours! That’s enough to make the author some decent money.
Torchwood
For example, the video you shared has EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND VIEWS in 24 hours! That’s enough to make the author some decent money.
Yes, but it’ll be easy come, easy go if people find out in two months that it was all BS. And the channel seems to have been around for a couple of years. They have a fair amount of content. Being that their main pitch is “spin-free news and reporting from behind the scenes,” it would obviously be a bad idea to ruin their reputation by putting out false news and reporting.
Torchwood
Well, if 50% of the report if accurate, that’s still exciting.
I’ll admit that the lack of Bad Robot on any of the materials we’ve seen so far (except for that old post) is a point against the report. But, then again, it’s not uncommon to have silent partners, differently named subsidiaries, and other low-key business measures utilized for the purposes of branding and marketing. And the marketing of DSC thus far has seemed weird to me. The vagueness about it all…something just doesn’t seem right. And then I see this presentation that puts forth reasonable, plausible explanations for it all, tying it all together under one, simple, plausible business decision that fits with facts in the public record. . . .
I think you misunderstand. 50% of their reports are made up and turn out to be wrong, and it’s probably closer to 25%– was giving the guy benefit of the doubt since I’m not going to take the time to research all his years of stories.
So what I’m saying is, the entire story is likely false, built on pure fiction they’ve made up. It’s a house of cards.
As for Discovery… what vagueness are you referring to? What has been weird about the marketing? I think they’ve been very clear and done a good job marketing it lately. They had a big panel at SDCC. They’ve been releasing trailers and clips, interviews, and first looks behind the scenes. They just did a big cover story on EW.
This is not the sign of vagueness or a company not confident in their show. They were simply waiting until the show was about to launch.
Torchwood
50% of their reports are made up and turn out to be wrong, and it’s probably closer to 25%– was giving the guy benefit of the doubt since I’m not going to take the time to research all his years of stories.
Just to be clear, you’re referring to some “comics scooper,” and not to Midnight’s Edge, the channel that put out the Discovery report, right?
I’d rather not digress into all of the issues that I’ve seen with the marketing of DSC at this point. My main concern here is finding out whether this Midnight’s Edge report is legit.
There are people here that invest an awful lot of time whining over the smallest things. The fact someone has a youtube account where they might receive money for increased views is certainly motivation for creating a video that naive fans would carry far and wide.
When this site reported that Bad Robot was not among the producers of DSC, there was no evidence provided in support of that claim either.
Their name not being listed as a production company isn’t good enough? That sounds like a logical fallacy, Shifting the Burden of Proof.
The production companies listed make sense. Secret Hideout is Kurtzman’s own production agency he founded totally separate from anything before (no Orci, no JJ, etc.). He hasn’t been affiliated with Bad Robot since ~2014.
CBS licenses Trek to Paramount, not the other way around, the buck stops with CBS. Remember the current version of Paramount is a movie studio, nothing more. The vast majority of Trek intellectual property went to CBS Corp.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_corporate_history
The style of DSC is similar due to multiple variables… A.) the style reflects similar ideas from other shows like The Expanse, etc. B.) They hired many of the same production art folks who have worked on either/or Berman-era Trek and Kelvin-era Trek C.) They are not identical, rather they borrow elements of style.
Some examples:
Hallmarks of JJ style — round corridors, bubble transporter pads, funky almost jagged modern art piece hanging above transporter pads.
Hallmarks of similar sets in DSC — geometric corridors, flat quite conventional transporter pads, nothing hanging over pads.
So yes they have some “slick” production style in common, yes they went and used lens flares (which I personally thought was a mistake for this very reason, it was a hallmark of JJ’s work and will confuse people).
DSC has visual similarities from wanting to seem familiar to contemporary audiences. It’s wanting to copy slick things seen elsewhere and it’s using production talent that’s been used in other Trek projects.
Good points, Matt.
There is NOTHING in Midnight’s reporting that says it’s legit. I’m nervous to even claim it as reporting. I’m not sure why you give them more credence than any fan off the street who makes something up– just because you want it to be true, and because it’s on Youtube, and has a slick presentation?
As for this site, at least TrekMovie has history of reporting news, and have done exclusive interviews. And they have never claimed to be “scoopers”, I’m not sure I recall them breaking any new important story.
As Matt says, burden of proof is a logical fallacy– it is always on the person MAKING the claim, not the person skeptical of it.
“I’m not sure why you give them more credence” was directed at Cygnus.
Torchwood
Well, keep in mind that the last time a nobody (Paramobius) reported a big avalanche of rumors/leaks like this, most of them bore out true. I admit there’s a wide range of possibilities regarding the ME report.
Matt Wright
“When this site reported that Bad Robot was not among the producers of DSC, there was no evidence provided in support of that claim either.” Their name not being listed as a production company isn’t good enough? That sounds like a logical fallacy, Shifting the Burden of Proof.
No. What I meant is that this site did not show proof of who was producing DSC, not that there was no proof of who wasn’t producing it. Obviously you cannot show proof of what does not exist. David Hume referred to this as The Problem of Induction. There was no evidence offered showing who the official, contractual producers of the show are. That is what I meant.
CBS licenses Trek to Paramount, not the other way around, the buck stops with CBS. Nor does Paramount doesn’t get to “relicense” it.
And I never said otherwise. That seems like a logical fallacy, The Straw Man. ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
What the report alleges is that a provision of CBS’s license to Paramount (for the BR Trek movies) gave Paramount the right to produce TV content, which CBS would then distribute. Nothing about Paramount re-licensing anything.
What the report alleges is that a provision of CBS’s license to Paramount (for the BR Trek movies) gave Paramount the right to produce TV content, which CBS would then distribute. Nothing about Paramount re-licensing anything.
Ah yes sorry I missed that nuance, no straw man intended ;-)
Common sense about the industry and the CBS/Par relationship will tell you that’s rather dubious. CBS has no interest in being in bed with Paramount (Viacom).
http://deadline.com/2016/09/les-moonves-star-trek-delay-viacom-merger-opinion-nfl-cbs-1201820189/
CBS wants to keep TV their domain. I’m highly skeptical that their agreement would let Paramount touch TV properties.
Case in point, back in 2013 there were rumors about a Kelvin-timeline cartoon to be developed by Paramount and put on sister company Nickelodeon’s TV network. It wasn’t going to happen because as far we know, Paramount can’t touch Trek on TV. In theory, if CBS liked the idea they could have okayed it and gotten a piece of the pie. So it’s pretty clear CBS doesn’t really care to work with Paramount on anything except for what they really have to (since Par has the catalog of movies).
Matt Wright
CBS wants to keep TV their domain. I’m highly skeptical that their agreement would let Paramount touch TV properties.
Could very well be.
We can chalk it up to a lack of common sense about the CBS/Paramount relationship. But, there could be reasons for including such a provision in the contract. Maybe Paramount paid them enough money for it. Though, I agree that it would be a mistake for CBS to let Paramount sully the Star Trek brand with a poorly received TV show. Then again, big companies make bad branding decisions all the time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd-iJKjSYc8
Matt Wright
P.S. And is there really such a clear distinction between Movie Trek and TV Trek in terms of brand reputation and awareness? To me, the line is blurry, at best, with a history of crossover in dramatic content and personnel (such as actors). And Paramount’s BR Trek movies have already damaged the Trek brand with everyone who found the BR Trek movies disappointing (and there are many such people).
To the public it may be blurry. It is not to people who follow the industry and the people working in it.
To me, the line is blurry, at best, with a history of crossover in dramatic content and personnel (such as actors).
I think you’re referring to content created pre-2006. Remember before the Viacom split, they were indeed one big happy Trek family.
If you mean behind the scenes, that’s the industry, it’s not surprising at all. If producers like a certain artist’s concept work they’ll use him/her.
Matt Wright
To the public it may be blurry. It is not to people who follow the industry and the people working in it.
Right, but with branding concerns, it’s the public that matters most, i.e. the customers. What does it matter if a relatively few people behind the scenes in the industry view TV Trek and Movie Trek as being separate brands? It’s the customers’ perceptions that matter when it comes to sales.
So, if CBS grants Paramount the rights to produce one Trek TV show (which CBS distributes per the license agreement), and it does well, then CBS can either continue that relationship, or cut Paramount out for the next one in order to keep the whole pie for themselves. If we’re talking about CBS’s motives for wanting to keep Paramount out of TV Trek, branding and financial concerns are the two main reasons to come to my mind. If the branding is already blurry with the customers, then what remains but pecuniary desire? Either way, CBS makes money. It’s just a question of how much money they’d make via the alleged licensing agreement to Paramount.
https://trekmovie.com/2017/05/23/editorial-10-big-picture-takeaways-from-the-star-trek-discovery-trailer/
“This new Star Trek show is being produced by CBS Studios in conjunction with Alex Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout Productions. J.J. Abrams, who produced the last three Star Trek films, has no involvement at all in this show, nor does Paramount Pictures or Abrams’ Bad Robot production company.”
And we accept this without much skepticism because Trekmovie has earned our trust and respect as a news outlet. We trust that they would not knowingly pass us false information.
The peddlers of that podcast have not earned such respect from me. Maybe if this turns out to be true, they’d gain a little bit, and I’d be willing to give them some benefit.
@Matt Wright — this thread is complete bunk of course, but one point of clarification — Paramount does own the copyright to the visual elements created in the Bad Robot films, not CBS, thought CBS has rights to it via derivative copyright. However, in order for any other production to use specific identical designs (which is not the case here), or original characters and story elements, Paramount and Bad Robot would likely both have to license the use to others, and receive royalties for it. If CBS wanted to set a series in the TOS film era, they would not be able to depict the exact look, or unique characters, from those films without a license and payments to use them.
I don’t believe for a minute any of that applies here and to this garbage story, but I did want to point out that CBS cannot just appropriate those original film elements without permission and compensation to use them to the contractual parties who created them.
@ Curious
That’s true of course. I wasn’t trying to imply CBS could just take anything Paramount creates. Only that CBS gets the final say in just about all aspects of Trek.
Curious Cadet
Have you seen official documents other than press materials listing the parties involved in production of DSC?
Have you?
I trust outlets like Variety and Deadline, reputable entertainment news organizations, that have listed the production companies so far cited.
Torchwood
Have you?
Where do outlets like Variety and Deadline get their information about productions from, but from the companies that send them their press releases? And, as far as I know, press releases are still sent to reputable outlets for the purposes of having those outlets report a strategically crafted message to the public. A press release comprises what the issuer of that release wants the public to think and talk about. If it were CBS’s intention to downplay the involvement of Bad Robot, they wouldn’t mention Bad Robot in the press release, would they? I’ll say it seems like an unusual scenario, but if it were the case, I would expect Bad Robot not to be included in the press releases. I don’t know…maybe it’s a case of the ME people misunderstanding something they heard relating to the licensing situation between CBS and Paramount.
Torchwood
And, again… None of the reputable news outlets reported any of those Paramobius rumors about STB before he did. And most of them were true. That’s the whole point of leaks and “behind the scenes” info. It’s not reported by the reputable outlets until it’s made public and no longer behind the scenes.
There were a lot more people here proclaiming that the Paramobius rumors were all “bunk” than those willing to give it credence. In fact, even after those Paramobius rumors bore out true, there were still people here stubbornly clinging to their position that the information was false. Even after the reputable outlets finally reported it! Which was several months after Paramobius reported it, incidentally. So, what can I tell you… Could be that I’ve been had. Taken for a ride. Hoodwinked, bamboozled, played, conned, buffaloed, swindled, misled, duped, fooled, gypped, hornswoggled and had the wool pulled over my eyes. But, I’m willing to give it a few days, wait and see if there’s any more to this allegation forthcoming. I’ll say it would be a shame if it all turns out to be false, because it’s the most interesting “reporting” on DSC that I’ve seen and heard since production began.
What is paramobius?
You can call it “reporting” but it’s not that. Once again: they provide no proof or evidence for these claims and have zero track record, so why anyone would blindly believe them proves they are suffering from confirmation bias.
And it is far from interesting, and not sure why you’d think it is a “shame” if false. You really want a 6-episode Khan-centric survival show replacing the 15-episode Discovery, which looks well and truly excellent?
Beyond was very good and at times superb. Yorktown sequence & the FX around the Enterprise were stunning. Karl Urban is a real highlight of these movies. Paramount need to get moving on ST4 with this cast ASAP. Forgot lower box office that was STID bad word of mouth fallout & mid July release was wrong. These movies should be released early May where box office is way higher. Beyond reversed that word of mouth fallout so Paramount should get ST4 moving today! Beyond also had a higher budget than it needed Enterprise destruction was a good $30-40M of that and not required either. More skilful storyline would have just disabled the Enterprise & her life support then the crew could fix her from the planet below & get back onboard would have been way more effective & saved so much $$$$$ making it more profitable. I still think Beyond broke even & turned a small profit from home TV & streaming sales.
Frankly, I’d like to see them released in the fall or winter (August/Sept/Nov or Jan/Feb). Keep them modestly budgeted, and away from serious blockbuster competition.
Beyond might have reversed the word of mouth fallout but did it accomplish that enough? STID literally pissed away all the good will they had with 2009.
If they can make a Star Trek film with a far lower budget, they can be successful.
My Dad, who is in his late 70’s, thinks Paramount should be making these movies as fast as they can. I agree. They are sitting on a gold mine. All they are missing is some good stories to tell.
Yes the cast of star trek beyond are coming to star trek 4 its need a title then a release date in 2018 I love star trek here my question will there be two more star trek movies plus the final chapter please bring jaylah to star trek 4 Sofia butella from the mummy I’m ready for the fourth star trek saga whoever cast an actress to play the villain like Natalie portman or malin akerman long live star trek forever
Star Trek 4 is indeed a lock for Paramount, but Karl Urban will be waiting a long time for that phone call. It was already made with DeForest Kelley and its about going back in time to 1986 to save the whales.
I think for fun it would be cool to see the Beyond cast re-create famous scenes from the show and movies. Little shorts they could put on the DVD.
There was an arrangement between Paramount and CBS about when the DSC could launch. There may be a blackout window. They may not be able to publicly green light this film until, after DSC premiers.
Very plausible. Could be.
No the issue was when CBS could make a new show and even then the deal only said they couldn’t launch one until 6 months after a film was released so not to divide the marketing. That was the entire reason why Discovery was supposed to come out in January. It would’ve been 6 months after Beyond was launched. But nothing stops them from making shows or films, just basically not have them premiere at the same time basically.
And again, they ALREADY green lit the next one before Beyond came out and that was announced AFTER we heard about Discovery coming so that’s obviously not it.
WHat it is is that Beyond bombed and Paramount is not sure if they want to make another yet. If Beyond made $700 million, none of this would be in dispute.
I think what he’s saying is that if there was a blackout window to make/announce the new show, perhaps there was some kind of window also that said Paramount couldn’t announce a second movie.
This is plausible: whether contractual or just out of respect, Paramount could be waiting until Discovery premieres to announce a sequel, so as not to draw attention away from this big effort to promote DSC.
Or, as you suspect also, it could be they want to see how DSC does, to gauge the health of the brand.
It could also be a combination of these things.
Exactly what I meant.
Trek 4 was announced, not greenlit. There’s a difference.
Everything will hinge on Star Trek Discovery’s success….which means we won’t ever see another Star Trek movie until probably the 75th anniversary of Star Trek.
Thats some strange math on your part. If Discovery is a success it won’t take 24 more years for there to be another movie lol.
Hollywood doesn’t think like that anymore. Even if they did delay another film it might be 5 years at best until they come up with something new. If they are going to wait 20+ years to make another film, then just sell it to someone else.
It is a huge suspension of disbelief to read these direct quotes, and related commentary at Cinema Blend (they don’t source their ‘not in development’ conclusion), and walk away with the conclusion these are ‘generic’ comments. Paramount isn’t doing anything with the franchise at this point, and even if they do plug a Trek feature into an empty slot prior to 2020, there would have to be some indications the movie was in development or pre-production. There just isn’t anything going on at the moment.
Sorry, but this last film was terrible. They should let the Kelvin timeline die and reboot. Slash the budget and make smaller, more thoughtful films, not action blockbusters with Star Trek seasonings sprinkled over them.
Sorry “Beyond” was easily the worst of the 3 cinema outings and the box office reflected that fact – it was essentially a bad TV episode with little or no gravitas or cinematic feel. At least STID felt like a “movie”, felt like the stakes were high.
Sadly “Beyond” was like a big budget “Insurrection” (an abomination of a twee Next Gen movie) and THATS why it failed – it was crap and like a TV episode.
The 3rd in the series should have been a massive Klingon war movie with huge galaxy shaking stakes.
Get rid of Pegg as writer, bring in cinematic scribe and make a film that people actually want to spend their hard earned dollars on and not a bad TV episode.
It aint rocket science.
I liked it more than Into Darkness, but less than 2009.
I for one do not want a ‘massive Klingon war movie’. That’s why God created Star Wars.
I sort of agree with both of you. Upon first viewing I liked Beyond a lot more than STID. But STID definitely was larger in scope, more cinematic etc.
But watching Beyond again, it was hard to sit through. It was really bad.
2009 was the best of the three and its hard to believe the same people produced all of them. Although 2009 had its issues too. But the story was more focused, which is funny since it had a convoluted story, a one-note villain and a ton of plot holes.
I guess that is why it was all downhill from there. No one recognized the issues of 2009. They patted themselves on the back and then set out to create a “bigger” film the second time around which only served to magnify the inherent issues of 2009.
Sorry that you didn’t like it.
I have watched Beyond so much on Epix that I have lost count.
i know that it is not everybody’s cup of tea, but,I really enjoyed it.
@Bobby — actually in the case of Trek there may be some rocket science involved. But I disagree with your assessment. Your analysis appears to be based on the current trend in action movies where every story must involve larger than life galaxy ending peril. It’s not the lack of scope that made INS look like a TV show, it was the cheap production values and art direction. BEY had a similar problem once they ended up on the planet. Even TOS with its limited budget mostly knew not to do that — usually having parallel action on board the Enterprise when the principals were away on a planet. Plus shooting a movie in the woods around Vancouver risks looking like every STARGATE SG1 episode ever made. There was simply nothing very cinematic about how BEY was shot — which I attribute to Linn more than anything. He has great stunts but his movies don’t necessarily have cinematic breadth. Abrams at least has that. Either way I wouldn’t say that’s why BEY failed at the BO. There’s a long list of mitigating circumstances that contributed to poor returns, including spending far more money on the movie than it looked. The movie did respectably well for a $120mm movie, or even a $150mm movie (the original budget). It’s disingenuous to suggest it didn’t do well at the box office for a franchise that traditionally has never gained much traction at the box office despite occasional peaks. What’s lacking for Trek is a formula to attract a Star Wars sized audience, or a way to make a profitable movie for regular-sized audience.
Sorry, but bringing in a scribe is no guarantee of success. John Logan didn’t produce ‘Gladiator’ type results for Nemesis, Ron Moore was at the top of his game for Battlestar Galactia, and Generations is barely watchable. As they say in the financial sector, past performance is not a predictor of future results.
I like some things about Beyond more than stid but in general, yes it is the weakest movie of the 3. I generally consider JJ a better director than Lin, at least from what I saw, because he’s a better storyteller.
as a reboot fan (fan of the first movies) I felt Beyond wasn’t made for the fans of this reboot, it didn’t care about people who were expecting a sequel or continuation of what the other team did. The bad results at box office and more mixed reviews compared to its predecessors find its reasons in the bad promotion, too much time in between movies and people losing interests BUT also the simple fact it may have alienated a lot of the fans who loved the first movies, and were lead to believe that Beyond ignored them (which, in a way, it did). The people who made the first movies successful didn’t make Beyond get the same or similar results and the new creative team (especially their interviews), and bad word from the reboot fans who eventually still watched it and said it felt too different and disconnetted from the rest, contributed to its failure.
“I’ll tell you if Paramount greenlights a fourth movie for us, I’ll be there. ”
..as long as they give him what he wanted (<–corrected for you), like they did in Beyond when he threatened to not 'be there'.
I forget he's the biggest star of this cast and with such box office draw..
gotta love he made so much fuss about the previous costume designer not putting the rank stripes on the female characters (only the short sleeves uniform, actually), and he was all feminist hero about it at the press conference.. and yet, he has no issues with the fact that the last movie sidelined the main female lead character to give him and Pegg more screentime, and make him the third lead (and third most payed) instead of Zoe like it was in the first movies. After all, we all know that trek must be the most progressive and inclusive… as long as you don't touch the white dudes status quo and don't forget that everything must be about the same 3 men forever.. because ~nostalgia~. He sure is a perfect trek fan.
the 4th one should be a time travel adventure!
I think a lot of the reason Star Trek Beyond didn’t do so well, was because just before release of rhe film, the studio alienated a large part of the fanbase by changing the longstanding rules for fan films and fan fiction. They picked the worst possible time to sue a fan funded production, that had previously met with fan film standards, and changed the rules after thousands of fans contributed to the funding of a full length film about a time in the Trek universe everyone seemed to ignore, before. The 50th anniversary release of a new film, was the worst possible time to alienate their fan base. Unless, of course, the rumors of someone attempting to drive stock prices down for a takeover, are true. If so, they succeeded, admirably.