Just a few days ago we reported on Star Trek’s Simon Pegg suggesting that the Star Trek film currently being scripted based on a pitch from Quentin Tarantino may not be (as previously reported) an R-rated idea. Now the Scotty actor and co-writer of Star Trek Beyond is suggesting that the Tarantino-based script is not the only Trek film script in consideration.
Pegg talks about another possible Star Trek movie script
Speaking to Geek Magazine, Pegg talked about the Tarantino project in context of another script:
“There’s a script that’s been written,” he notes, “and there’s also the story of Quentin Tarantino coming and chatting with J.J. about an idea that he’s had for a long time. That idea is going into the writer’s room to be looked at. I think it might take something like him to restart it. It’s an interesting proposition, although I don’t know if that means everybody will be blowing each other’s heads off with phasers and calling Klingons mother f*****s, but, who knows, that could be fun.”
Pegg obliquely referenced this other Star Trek film script on the red carpet at the Empire Awards on Sunday, noting that the Tarantino project “is sort of in the mix.” The other script “in the mix” is likely related the ‘Star Trek 4’ project that was announced in July 2016, which would see the return of Thor’s Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk, James T Kirk’s father from J.J. Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek.
That July 2016 announcement had named J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay as the writers of the next Star Trek film. However, a cryptic tweeted image sent by Simon Pegg in December 2016 hinted he may also be in the mix. The tweet was sent from the offices of Star Trek producer J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot production company, and showed Pegg and his his Star Trek Beyond co-writer Doug Jung at their laptops.
Today… pic.twitter.com/XJ31AmYprg
— Pegg News (@simonpegg) December 6, 2016
And in the Summer of 2017, actor Zachary Quinto also talked about how a script for a fourth Star Trek film set in the Kelvin-universe was being written at the time. And all of this was well before the project related to Quentin Tarantino’s pitch for a Star Trek film heated up in December 2017.
Multiple scripts is nothing new
It is not unusual for studios to develop multiple scripts ahead of green-lighting their next franchise films. This has been seen multiple times in the history of Star Trek feature films, including the period following Star Trek Into Darkness, when a script written by Roberto Orci was rejected late in the development project, leading to Pegg and Jung being tapped to write what became Star Trek Beyond.
That being said, having multiple scripts does not necessarily mean they cancel each other out. Currently a number of franchises are developing and releasing multiple films set in their respected universes, including X-Men, Star Wars and of course the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So, it is possible that multiple Star Trek scripts can still move forward, once the studio decides how to handle the franchise.
Paramount is currently playing with the ‘Cinematic Universe’ approach with the Transformers franchise, with a Bumblebee spin-off set for the summer of 2019. However, the planned 2020 Transformers filmhas recently been taken off their schedule as they and Hasbro have a rethink. The studio has yet to announce a replacement summer tentpole for 2020. With over two years there is still plenty of time to get a Star Trek film to fill that spot, and a 4-year gap between franchise entries was seen before between 2009’s Star Trek and 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness.
While Star Trek Beyond underperformed compared to the previous two Trek feature films, it was still Paramount’s top release for 2016. That year saw a number of other disappointments for the studio, leading to changes in management at Paramount and Viacom, which has also been dealing with funding issues in recent years. While Viacom’s new CEO has talked about Star Trek as being one of their key tentpole franchises, these internal studio issues are also likely a factor in why after almost two years, Paramount has yet to put a green light on another big budget Trek film.
Simon Pegg and Director Justin Lin on the set of Star Trek Beyond
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.
I’d still be very interested to see what the rejected Orci script was.
Same
Let’s sit and wait. Maybe the man himself will throw us a bone…
Yes, I am actually very interested in this – perhaps we could get a ( good* ) comics adaptation of this?
* I say this as someone who views much of the current Trek comic output as very, very poor, with some truly dreadful interior artwork on many occasions.
While I like the stories and stuff, the artwork is bad and even worse when starships are involved, oftentimes just taking images from Google and tracing over them.
He made a comment in here relatively recently that it was about Prime Universe Kirk and Spock saving the galaxy one last time with the help of their Kelvin Universe counterparts.
Hopefully that was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek. If true my interest would evaporate.
I don’t think that he was kidding. It was widely rumored, and sort of confirmed by Orci at the time he was developing Star Trek 3, that he was working to get Shatner and Nimoy in the film. Sadly Nimoy died before that was possible.
When Pegg said Paramount thought Bob’s script was ” too Star Trek-y ” – fans thought he meant it wasn’t dumb enough for a mass audience. Now it seems like it meant it was nothing but fan service. So glad we got Star trek Beyond instead.
Yeah, I got the same feeling about Orci’s ST3 script. Fan service through and through.
Agreed, glad we got “Beyond” instead.
Just Another Salt Vampire,
Re: Sadly Nimoy died before that was possible.
Non sequitur, your facts are uncoordinated. Nimoy died in February of 2015. Paramount let Orci go as director in October of 2014.
That is, Orci’s directing career is what sadly died preventing it from happening – not Nimoy’s life. One fully expects that if Orci had gotten the greenlight, instead of the door in October that Nimoy’s scenes would likely have been the first shot and that Nimoy and Orci collaborating together would have cleverly gotten around what ever limitations the actor’s COPD might have presented.
I don’t think the facts are uncoordinated. Nimoy was ill for an extended period before his death and intended to make the film if he could, but his health ultimately prevented it. Adam Nimoy has said this in interviews.
Clearly there was other stuff going on too, as you note, that got Orci and his writers booted, or caused them to quit, or however it went down. Unless Orci or his writers give a narrative at some point we may never know.
Just Another Salt Vampire,
Re: don’t think the facts are uncoordinated
My Aunt died from COPD and successfully hid it from us that she was any kind of ill unto that death, and she wasn’t half the actor that Nimoy was. I had to straighten out her affairs post mortem and I can assure you, both she and Nimoy were ill long before either were given their COPD diagnoses.
The fact that you had to modify your assertion from his death being the sole factor sadly preventing his appearing to that of his failing health, is proof enough that the facts of your initial assertion were, indeed, uncoordinated.
You seem intent on being rude rather than having a conversation. I never said that Nimoy’s death was the only reason the project collapsed. I’m sorry to hear of your aunt’s death.
Just Another Salt Vampire,
“Sadly Nimoy died before that was possible.” — Just Another Salt Vampire
That statement in the context of your post claimed Nimoy’s death prevented Orci from getting him, and Shatner, in his film when it had absolutely nothing to do with it. Brad Grey’s failed movie making policy decisions for Paramount, which included his Trek decisions, did. Nimoy was very much alive when Grey’s Paramount decided to halt Orci’s filmmaking. Grey gambled he could turn his failing film financing around with BEYOND’s anniversary story over Orci’s and lost. Nimoy’s death simply never played a role in preventing Orci from securing his performance for his film. And neither did Nimoy’s COPD which he decided to make public a year prior. Orci was well aware what he was getting into writing a part for the actor.
Salt Vampire, the problem I have with that being the Orci plot is the script was rejected for being too “Star Trek-y”. Which I would take as being more like TMP rather than having Bill and Leonard co-star. Using original cast would be more gimicky than Star Trek-y. So was that plot REALLY the Orci plot?
ML31, all I know is that Orci made that comment on these boards a few months ago. I wish that the comments were searchable so that we could find it. Is there some way to search comments other than manually reading through old threads?
If you click on each thread and just to a “Find” for BobOrci his comments will appear but you’d have to do it for each thread.
Thanks, TUP. I did run a general search for “BobOrci” but the results didn’t yield his comment history, so it sounds like the only way to find it would be to look through a bunch of old threads manually and use your suggestion to search.
Salt Vampire… Not having seen or read the comment my guess would be that if he said it it was said in such a way as to not be taken seriously. But I suppose you never really know unless he himself clarifies.
Disinvited found the quote (thanks much, Disinvited): https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/06/exclusive-alex-kurtzman-on-pushing-edges-of-canon-and-planting-seeds-for-star-trek-discovery-season-2/#comment-5367364
“yeah, why not [Share his idea for 3rd BR Trek movie.-Disinvited]. Nimoy and Shatner together one last tome to help save the universe.” — Bob Orci, October 6, 2017 10:40 pm
Just Another Salt Vampire,
The reason you can’t find it is that Orci never made that claim. Pegg did.
https://trekmovie.com/2015/05/19/pegg-talks-trek-3-says-paramount-wants-a-less-star-trek-y-film/
“They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y.” — Simon Pegg
Just Another Salt Vampire,
Re: I wish that the comments were searchable
They are using the Google site restriction, site:trekmovie.com,
in the Google search box along with the exact forced spelling search of his handle “BOBORCI”
Just Another Salt Vampire,
I have a comment in moderation and I just realized you likely weren’t focused on the current “Trek-y” quote as that response assumed, but your earlier one which I sourced for you further up. I tried to edit it but apparently when a comment goes into moderation it blocks those options.
I’m pretty sure “too Star Trek-y” would mean fanservice. Which would serve a great MINORITY of moviegoers.
As you know, we Trekkers are known as huge nerds. The general public doesn’t go see movies to be included in nerddom.
To me Marja I think there is a difference between being to Trek-y and being gimicky. Too Trek-y I see as being too talky. Thoughtful. Not enough explosions. Being gimicky is including Bill and Leonard just for the sake of pandering to the Trekkers.
Just Another Salt Vampire,
You mean this one?
https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/06/exclusive-alex-kurtzman-on-pushing-edges-of-canon-and-planting-seeds-for-star-trek-discovery-season-2/#comment-5367364
“yeah, why not [Share his idea for 3rd BR Trek movie.-Disinvited]. Nimoy and Shatner together one last tome to help save the universe.” — Bob Orci, October 6, 2017 10:40 pm
Exactly. Thanks. D.
It’ll show up someday… money is to be made after all!
He sort of suggested he’d release it in some way but has gone quiet. He took exception to Pegg saying they werent allowed to see Orci’s story and insinuated that elements of his story made it into Beyond. he didnt seem happy about (then again, he routinely seemed miserable while posting here once the fanbase turned on him lol)
he should’ve kept himself distant to fans just done an occasional interview with TM.com and Trek Magazine etc.. not engaged in regular discussions with fans. asking for trouble especially when he was saying stuff like ‘there’s a reason why I’m a writer and you are not’ and telling fans to F off (in the words of Pegg but who could get away with it) which made the general media news.
Paramount should’ve totally gone with the orci days of future past type script with Shat and Nimoy though. Big mistake for the anniversary to do something random like Beyond and they paid dearly for it
So, after all that context, we are still left with….nothing.
Hmm…I wonder what he means by “I think it might take something like him to restart it.” Does that mean he thinks Tarentino’s Trek is considered one to “restart” the franchise? I am probably wrong on that but I am not understanding what he means by that. If it is I totally disagree w that statement. I think the Kevlin Timeline movies have been great (although STITD was…a bit to swallow) and don’t think they need someone else to come in and kick the tires. Beyond was by far the best film IMO & I hope they continue with that type of story telling.
I think this is “restart” as in “stalled” like a stalled engine, not “dead” like Trek movies are off the table.
I would guess Pegg is speaking from the perspective of there already being a finished script and it not getting the studio’s juices flowing. Someone with stroke like QT might submit a story interesting enough to get the studio to take the financial risk again.
Paramount has no idea how to handle the property. They never had. A big budget reboot was the safest way to expand the audience, and when the traction was there, they killed it with their 4 years wait time. This is one of the franchises that would actually *work* as a franchise, but Paramount seems to be afraid of testing it (especially after other studios failed miserably with some of their attempts at franchises, such as the “dark universe” monste movies, which coincidentially was also overseen by Kurtzman). So far, the only potential franchise in the works at Paramount is Transformers, and I really don’t see it having the same pull or appeal in the long run that Star Trek has (and really, if you’re building a franchise, you need to think long-term, you plan ahead for years. I don’t see that happening for TF either).
What they need is some consistent and interesting world-building. They could just copy the Marvel formular, telling medium-mudget individual stories that cumulate in big-budget event movies. They could have done it 15 years ago.
when the traction was there, they killed it with their 4 years wait time.
Biggest mistake Paramount ever made. If they were contracted with Bad Robot for the movie, they should have contractually insisted on two years only between films, with other directors to be slated if JJ couldn’t be bothered to do it. If BR wanted Trek that badly, they should have had the grace to do that. But no-o-o-o-o-o.
Still peeved about that nine years later, I am.
Alex,
“Of all the words of tongue or pen/The saddest are these: ‘It might have been!'” – J.G. Whittaker
I don’t believe Paramount is developing anything for Star Trek at the moment. I could be wrong, but all this speculation is coming through Bad Robot, which under their first look agreement with Paramount is the only entity capable of doing anything with Star Trek at the moment until that deal ends, or Paramount negotiates BR out of Trek, which is unlikely. So in their current financial situation, they’re doing nothing. That’s my take anyway.
I think you’re right in that Paramount are not actively looking to green light anything at the moment. Its clear that scripts and ideas for another film are being submitted, which is normal for any major franchise series.
It would not surprise me to be honest if the next Trek film does not happen until about 2025.
The problem is that the JJ films had gone for a sort of Star Wars imitation act with the flash and bang approach. But Star Wars is back, the real deal!
Star Wars is all the rage and Star Trek must find it’s own identity if it is to survive the power of the ‘Mouse’ Wars. This explains why Tarantino is probably being given serious consideration!
You’re not wrong. Paramount is broke, and they dumped the 2020 Transformers movie because they aren’t going to pour 200MM into a break even project. It’s ridiculous at this point to assume they’d plug Trek in there, another 200MM project that in all likelihood, is a break even project.
It’s ridiculous that a Trek movie has to cost $200 million. It doesn’t. None of them before Star Trek 2009 came anywhere close to that. “Gravity” and “The Martian” each cost a tad over $100 million to make.
Edgar Wright could make a fantastic looking trek movie for $50m.
Wrath of Khan cost $11m back in the day.
Nowadays – $11m wouldn’t even pay for one of the Marvel actors to cameo.
Sometimes I wish they would just start making direct-to-Netflix movies or specials and have more liberty to tell smarter stories.
What a great idea!
Of course it would probably go to CBS All Access if the merger with Paramount happens. Who knows if CBS will even be willing to take on that sinking ship of a studio.
Great work, Brad Grey!! /s
I think you have to blame that on all the franchise mania that has been happening in the past decade. If you look at Paramount they have three tentpole franchises: Mission Impossible, Transformers and Star Trek. They have attempted others like GI Joe and the last Terminator film but none of those have been big enough hits. And yes sadly to say that now includes Star Trek.
My guess is they thought if they made it more mainstream, hire a lot of action directors and a young hot cast then it could be the next big breakout franchise. But in all honesty, NONE of the films ever got to a big blockbuster level. STID made the most but as been pointed out costed the most. It cost more than most of the MCU films minus the Avenger films to put in perspective, but did not make anything close to those. To put it in perspective the only MCU films it made more money than was The Incredible Hulk, Thor 1 and Captain America 1 and thats it. And those films cost much less than STID did.
Trek just can’t compete with the big boys. Its not to say it can’t be successful, clearly it can. It just can’t compete on the hyper block buster level and my guess Beyond kind of ended that idea for good.
Which is the point I made.
Star Wars is all the rage now. Star Trek has to find it’s own identity or it will not have a chance of succeeding. It’s right that time is taken to do the right movie… as painful and frustrating as it is for the fans.
They got too excited over Trek 09 when the numbers should have told them there was a ceiling. It might have been a high ceiling, but it was there.
They thought it would be like the Dark Knight trilogy where Batman Begins was good, not spectacular, but critically acclaimed and led to the massive success of The Dark Knight.
They wanted STID to be their Dark Knight. But they greenlit a truly awful script so they have no one to blame but themselves.
Exactly…
They were trying so hard to make STID “The Dark Knight”
Even the crappy movie poster was reminiscent of TDK’s marketing. I say reminiscent because TDK did a hella better job of marketing.
GRRRR Paramount.
Sounds familiar to what’s happening with the next Bond film. Producers commissioned a script from their usual screenwriters, but then Danny Boyle came to producers with an idea, commissioned a script, and put the original script on the backburner. I kinda wonder if Paramount is doing the same. Pegg/Jung or Payne/McKay’s script is (minus rewrites, etc.) finished, but let QT and the writer they hired write a draft, see what you’ve got and go from there. It’s not like the film has a greenlight, director, release date, etc. Might as well throw multiple buns in the oven and see which one comes out better.
Yep. As a Bond fan (in addition to being a Trekkie) I’ve been following the ongoing saga of both Bond 25 and the next Kelvin Trek movie. They seem to be facing similar issues, and of course both are long standing franchises.
In the case of Bond, if they don’t like Boyle’s script they’ll probably go with the original script from Neal Purvis & Robert Wade.
For Trek though, if the Tarantino thing doesn’t pan out, will they go back to already written script(s)? It seems like they would have already started production even before Tarantino talked to JJ if the studio had been really sold on the previous story ideas. That might be what Pegg is referring to when he says: “I think it might take something like him to restart it.” Maybe the other scripts are already dead, and Trek 4 doesn’t happen without Tarantino.
They would’ve started production–if Paramount gave them the green light. Doesn’t look like they have. Studios/production companies can commission scripts without green lighting a picture. Bond had a green light as soon as they locked down a distributor, but it doesn’t appear that way with Trek. I think they took a look at things with the franchise after Beyond didn’t meet their financial expectations, even though they announced a fourth Kelvin flick. Plus, there’s obvious concern with Disney gobbling up almost the rest of Hollywood. Part of it might stem from the possibility of franchise unification (bringing CBS and Paramount back under the same banner), which could open the door to a host of possibilities for Trek which don’t currently exist under the current split.
Franchise unification, I agree is a good thing, but it is a long way off. If somehow Viacom and CBS agreed to merge today, it still has to go through approvals at the governmental level, and then the two corporate structures have to be slowly merged. Merging back into one complete entity will take years. Paramount needs to do something with their version of Trek pretty soon, just to keep it in the pop culture conversation. So we shall see…
However is there anything preventing them from working together today without a merger (or if a merger happened, to work together while the merger goes through its aprovals)?
Is there anything stopping Paramount from making a deal for CBS to produce a new Trek film?
Matt,
Aww darn it.
Let’s hope something lights a fire under Paramount’s metaphorical butt then.
Well, it’s also the budget storm clouds over both Spectre and Beyond that is prompting a cautious approach by their respective studios. In Paramounts case, having yanked a production with a high probability of being a 200MM break even project, they aren’t likely to plug the hole with Trek…another 200MM break even project. Paramount is still broke, regardless of how good a script may or may not be.
Yeah, but from a broad market perspective, Bond (not to mention its studio) is a *lot* healthier as a franchise than JJTrek. Spectre was much more successful than Beyond, and none of the Daniel Craig Bond’s have endured a bad backlash a la “Into Darkness.” (Okay, Quantum of Solace got a lot of strange looks, but it wasn’t bashed like STID).
The Next Bond is probably going to be filmed late this year. Craig isn’t getting any younger for the role and I don’t think he will want to be in Roger Moore territory….
If by “Roger Moore territory” you mean the point where I’m seeing the guy in the lead role as appearing absurdly miscast, we’ve been there since Craig got hired, and it has only gotten worse (with a few moments of exceptions, mostly in QUANTUM of all things.)
If you mean outstaying his welcome, that’s been true of nearly everybody cast as Bond except Dalton. Not knocking Broz again here, as he showed with TAILOR OF PANAMA he could have been a great bastard Bond if they’d just given him decent material and the right director. Craig always looked prematurely old (and not in a good Connery way but in a 2nd thug from the left, the one who lost an acid fight way) so his aging isn’t really changing things, though I imagine he might be starting to shrink by now (hard to tell, since he is so short to begin with that he should never have even been in the running for an 007 film except to play a henchman or a pre-maimed Felix Leiter.)
Not a big Bond fan (havent seen all the old ones). Big fan of Brosnan and loved his Bond though he final outting, he was a bit long in the tooth. But a great actor who captures the playboy aspect.
I hated Craig at first but his version of Bond, I enjoy the films. They are more violent and brutal. But I do miss the fun and suave of Bond.
It didnt make sense to cast Craig and pretend it was a young Bond when it wasnt. Although he’s in great shape so good for him.
They should do that idea where “James Bond” is the identity they give various agents and all the former actors are “canon”. That would be fun.
I say again, Idris Elba.
Too bad they didn’t get Jason Isaacs instead of Daniel Craig, although I liked Craig well enough. Isaacs then was elegant and [is still] chilly enough for the role.
Personally I view the 007 movies as shallow action flicks with cool tech that hold little interest for me. Bond as a character is a cipher, and for me, that’s boring.
I always thought Dalton brought some of the darkness and ambiguity of the novels, but that’s a minority viewpoint. Much as I love-love Connery in the role (FROM RUSSIA is just about a perfect unit of entertainment for me), it is more the man’s charm than any characterization that he brings.
Frankly,the best thing that could happen for new Star Trek movies would be for CBS and Paramount to be brought under one tent again.
I think that is unlikely.
But, you never know.
It’s actually closer to happening than ever before. Viacom is just sort of blowing in the wind while CBS continues to thrive.
If they really wanted to cash in, they would release a movie every year that tied one series up and into a bigger arc for 6 years.
I thought “Beyond” was WAY better than “Darkness,” so I’d love to see Pegg and Jung write the next script.
Just not another thinly-justified ‘revenge!’ storyline, please.
@ Thorny, yeah, revenge has been done to death. I’d actually like to see a movie without any villain at all, like “The Devil in the Dark” or The Voyage Home.
The rumor I had heard initially with the “original” script – in which Hemsworth reprising Kirk’s dad was a story in which the Kelvin universe found itself in a position of having to terminate itself due to some grave time paradox with the prime universe…. You could still do that story with Tarantino. It sounds like a great Trek story, but it also sounded like one designed to wrap up the Kelvin timeline – permanently.
At this point, I don’t know if we’ll see either one made. I wonder if the Tarantino bit was as much a “let’s poke the bear and see what happens” to get Paramount off the dime and make some sort of decision about the franchise’s movie future.
That notion is a wonderful one from where I sit, I just think it would have worked better when I thought up doing a MAJOR MATT MASON movie using the same notion — that the folks discover their reality is not one capable of continuing, and so they heroically and gracefully give way for ‘our’ universe to continue by crashing their own. I always thought it would be sweet to show a uni that is tech-driven and Promethean like MMM hinted at, having to realize that tech is not enough, while also realize their own limitations (and yet their sacrifice shows them transcending them in the most important way possible, for a people and realm they will never even live to see.)
And I think Orci’s main point was it put Pine’s Kirk in the position of having a universe where his father lived but was the wrong universe or setting things right and his father dies. or something like that
Although I suppose the “right” universe had his father living…
Sooner,
It makes no sense for the inhabitants of one universe to “sacrifice themselves” for another universe; their universe is equally populated with innocent people.
Depends, if your universe is no longer viable (entropy failing or some kind of mega calamity), then you can either act on behalf of some stranger or not, your end is the same either way.
“The Voyage Home” villain was the writer.
I found Beyond OK but just gave a teenage vibe for me, not a good thing…
I thought Beyond was a *very* well done Trek entry, with a none-to-overt second-season TOS vibe. Aside from a few rather blatant plot holes (which one doesn’t), it was a really good and, IMHO, underrated effort. The end with Kirk and the boys blasting the bad guys with the screaming music was great. It would have received a lot more attention had it been the 2nd movie rather than STID.
It was much better in terms of character development. But it was a “small” story, not remotely epic with a villain we didnt care about.
Why do we need “epic” and a “villain”? And personally I thought Krall was a better-drawn villain than Khan.
I thought good Trek didn’t involve villains.
The main reason we “need” the “epic” elements is because Paramount positioned Trek as a tentpole franchise, to my mind a ridiculous notion, if Trek is to be all about story.
Paramount should do both. Let Pegg’s movie get made now for 2020 & also let QT have his movie (with the same cast 2 years later). This way you get to keep movie Trek in the public domain. Waiting too long is the worse possible thing imaginable as Trek goes warm to cold for casual moviegoers & the brand starts to wither away & fade into the shadows.
Beyond was an excellent movie which suffered from bad PR & terrible marketing decisions around the TFA attached beastie boys trailer. That alone cost them a lot of box office!
Paramount doesn’t have that kind of money.
Unfortunately Star Trek isn’t Marvel or Star Wars. The films doesn’t earn that much to create that kind of ambition and vision. That and the fact Trek doesn’t really have an overseer like it did back in the 90s.
The first Marvel movies in their Avengers universe (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America) all had a relatively modest budget of less than 150 million each. But Marvel had a master plan to convince investors. This was before there was before there was Disney to back them up. If Paramount calls Skydance or one of their Chinese investors, they really don’t have anything to offer, other than ‘yeah, we want to make another one’.
No surprise that Beyond performed badly, it’s the weakest of the new films. Bring back Abrams. He knows how to make a blockbuster. Paramount and CBS should have given him carte blanch like Disney did for Star Wars, which was dead before he made it awesome again.
No.
Well, yes. That’s like, my opinion man.
Are you serious? Star Wars was most certainly not dead at all. In fact it never really has been dead apart from maybe the very late 80s to early 90s….
The Force Awakens was a critical and commercial smash, after the franchise was damaged by those prequels, which are so poorly rated.
Both ST09 and STID were critical darlings (check the RT ratings) and STID is the highest grossing Trek movie (not the most profitable though).. I liked Beyond, but it was a TV movie like Generations.
James,
GEN was probably the best-shot film out of the bunch, with a talented director of photography who really helped immensely in offsetting all the production scrimping forced on the director by Paramount’s outside producer. You can dislike it for being immensely stupid and I’ll back you for the most part, but calling it a TV movie is absurd.
BEYOND is the only reboot movie I liked at all, the Abrams pics were horrible (ID only slightly less so than the godawful 09), but even BEYOND didn’t sustain for multiple viewings, which I think may be due to the film being over-edited and over-long as much as anything else. You could have told the story with a lot less VFX and it would have worked better, because it would have been leaner, I’ll grant you that.
STID sucked. RT notwithstanding, it really did suck. I dont know how accurate RT is over-all but STID is what did in the JJ franchise.
It took all the goodwill that a decent 2009 film built up and flushed it down the toilet with a convoluted plot, manufactured drama that fell flat, gratuitous eye roll inducing scenes with Carol, a lazy and pointless Nimoy cameo and a story based on real world events that cast the US as the bad guy and terror-ists as the good.
It was so bad, it should never have made it out of the writers room. Which is a shame because it had the bones of a really good epic film. It just needed better writers
=sigh= The prequels made a ton of money. Star Wars continued to make a ton of money. A decade between films with the original cast pretty much insured that The Force Awakens was going to make a bucket of cash.
ST09 reached a broader audience but STID, despite the amount of money it earned, really pissed off a lot of fans and stalled the momentum established by ST09. STID also demonstrated that Abrams lacks his own vision as a director. He can make a buck for the studio but he continues to recycle themes and ideas from other writers and directors.
Beyond was poorly handled by Paramount.
I don’t think fan reaction has anything to do with it. These films are aimed at the general public, not us. They couldn’t care less if we like it or not. And if a movie tanks, it’s because of bad business decisions, bad marketing or word of mouth. The general audiences love Into Darkness. The long waiting times are what killed Star Trek Beyond, the comptetition from other high-profile tentpoles like Star Wars and superheroes. Trek isn’t the only 2016 film that underperformed.
Well neither STAR TREK nor STAR WARS were dead. But in regards to SW, the most obvious proof that it wasn’t is that Disney dropped $4 billion on it instead of buying it at a far more reasonable firesale cremation price.
Exactly neither were ‘dead’. This misnomer comes up too often. Yes people were fatigued when Enterprise came around and it got cancelled. One show doesn’t kill off an entire franchise like one film bombing doesn’t.
I always tell people its no way Star Trek was ‘dead’ because if THAT were the case no one in their right mind would have greenlit a $150 million less than one year after Enterprise was cancelled.
As for Star Wars, it just ended. Lucas was adamant, at the time, there was no more story to tell. And ROTS was actually the third biggest film in the franchise so yeah no way was that franchise ‘dead’.
You nailed it.
Lucas was also whiney about the criticism of the prequels and said why bother making movies if people are going to crap on them. And since he owned the franchise, he could do what he wanted.
But he always toyed with Star Wars. He commissioned scripts for a live action TV show. And he had met with the key actors about doing a sequel BEFORE selling to Disney.
I think he wanted to do more but didnt want to go through all the intense labor of love involved and saw Disney as an entity that would do his baby proud and expand it and make it an infinite thing.
Plus, he made billions. Although once could argue Disney got Lucas for a steal.
I also assume Lucas’ kids werent interested in the family business. If he died, his heirs would control what happened and where it went. Lucas wanted to be the decider.
And that money spent by Disney resulted in Lucas getting $2 billion cash and 2% of all outstanding shares of Disney. ‘Dead’ doesn’t reap a $4 billion plus cash windfall.
Star Wars wasn’t dead, it’s just that Disney saw more value in creating new content in that franchise universe, while Lucas was content to repackage old material. Keep an eye on merchandising, because that’s where Disney, and Lucasfilm before, made their money.
The Force Awakens recycled old material and sold it as new. People ate it up, though.
Yes, Dennis. It absolutely was a complete recycle of Ep. 4. Yet it was made in a decent manner and after the horrid prequels, the public was willing to latch on to anything that didn’t suck. I myself got caught up in it. I recall coming away from TFA thinking that was fun, save for the whiney Ren once his mask came off. But upon reflection I realized, “Hey… We saw all this before!”
Can’t agree. Beyond was miles better in terms of story than the abortive Into Khanness. STID was creatively bankrupt. Beyond aspired to tell a story. Maybe it wasn’t a perfect one, but at least someone put some thought into it, and its production values allowed it to resonate like a good 2nd season TOS episode. Had Beyond been the 2nd movie, it would have done much better both critically and from the fandom.
And let’s not forget that there are even signs, albeit limited, that there is SW franchise fatigue. I mean, let’s face it, how many times can you blow up a Death Star or tell a story building up to/following up after blowing up a death star?
SoonerDave,
Re: signs, albeit limited, that there is SW franchise fatigue.
I’ll stop taking such a suggestion with a grain of salt when the same asserters stop being wrong in their MARVEL Universe fatigue signs.
Abrams isn’t that popular around Paramount these days and Star Wars was never dead.
The possibility of Paramount approving a big-budget Tarantino Trek film is approximately 3,720 to 1.
So you say there’s a chance
This is based on what evidence?
Mirror Galt,
Odd, I’ve never regarded any of QT’s product as “big budgeted” could you cite which of his movies were afforded this largess?
I think Django Unchained was his biggest film and that was $100 million. Thats only a mid-range size film for Hollywood these days.
Tiger2,
Yep. My point exactly.
My guess is WHOEVER makes the next Trek film its going to be a lot smaller budget wise than the last two films. I’m guessing around $100 million at least though.
Normally I agree with Mirror Gault, but QT doesn’t really spend large budgets relative to the times. His notion for an R-rated (and actually good) version of CASINO ROYALE back around the turn of the century would have priced out at 40 to 50 mil, roughly a third of what the Eon films began costing at that time.
The win/win with QT is that he does stay on budget and makes his films economically, despite the occasional aesthetic expense like large format, and that he does have an often compelling style (can’t say always, as while I love PULP and KB1 and INGLORIOUS, I haven’t ever gotten through RESERVOIR or JACKIE BROWN, only tolerated KB2 and gave up after a reel or so on HATEFUL.) The only real ‘lose’ with him at this point probably has as much to do with his increasingly tarnished personal rep, and honestly, I don’t think many Trek viewers (assuming there still are ‘many’ trek viewers in theatergoing mode) would boycott based on his ethical transgressions.
Keep in mind Reservoir was done on a really low budget. He was originally going to shoot it on 8mm home video cameras but Harvey Kaitel’s interest opened up some financing.
Reservoir Dogs is a great film at showing us a young, rough QT. You can tell he was special. If he made that film today, it would be quite different. Pulp was similar but he had clearly matured as a writer and director.
Ok, the title of this “news” story is way beyond misleading. Pegg barely mentioned the other script, let alone actually discuss it. Sorry, calling this one click-bait!
Okay, that was weird. I clicked ‘post comment’ down below, and a pink box appeared that said ‘hacker’. Who did I piss off?
same
I definitely prefer not to hear Klingons being called mother effers the movies are great just the way they are don’t ruin them by vulgarity and stuff that’s not needed
Good Trek thrives with smaller budgets I think, Star Trek II and VI, to name a few examples. When I saw all the effects work done with ST:Beyond, I just thought it was so needless because it didn’t really serve the story, which was kinda meh. The moment I saw the motorcycle randomly sitting on the bridge of the Kelvin, I rolled my eyes at the inevitable motorcycle stunt scene that was coming.
I wonder will any Romulan or Klingon villains, or even newer villains be entertained in the Tarantino script? Should there be an Irish hero or an Irish villain be entertained? Colm Meaney’s Miles O’Brien would look good in a 23rd century Engineering uniform.
I want to point out that Simon Pegg’s responses to inquiries about a Tarantino story and film feel very matter-of-fact, and not very enthused. That seems a departure from the general style of Hollywood today. Everyone seems to heap loads of praise upon one another all the time. I usually find it a bit saccharine and exhausting. And yet, Pegg, who in the past has done plenty that, gives us none of it this time. This makes me think (1) he just doesn’t like the idea Tarantino is presenting and/or (2) he is advocating for another idea, one -as the article suggests- that may have been co-written by him. There’s
(a) The Greorge Kirk Idea
(b) The Tarantino Idea
and maybe
(c) The Pegg/Jung Idea
and plus
(d) The Orci Idea for the Kelvin Star Trek 3 Movie.
This is not unlike all the other times there were various ideas that never came to fruition, all the way back to Phase II or the Titans.
I just hope they settle on the best one and get to production soon!
Eric Styles,
Those ‘various ideas’ you mention happened sequentially, not simultaneously, and each represented a project that evolved and then died before another arose. So that’s not quite the same thing at all. There was only a brief time on TITANS when the show, according to De, had a firm start date — but they had no script at that point. Before that and P2, which followed a couple months after TITANS’ cancellation, development on trek was in fits and surges and only in the story area, mostly GR trying to get a couple of his treatments approved, and then Paramount seeing other writers in an attempt to get things going.
I have a feeling there are similar elements between the Tarantino idea and the George Kirk idea which is why JJ was so interested in at least getting a script.
Although the fact they hired a different writer for the QT idea might mean Im wrong.
I wish this series had a plan and someone with a vision. Paramount does not understand Star Trek they wanted the last film to be Disney’s Guardians of the Galaxy. They got rid of the people who did have a plan going forward. Bob Orci is not my favorite writer, but you cannot deny the first 2 films were hits. I loved Beyond, but i might have also enjoyed the alternate unmade film.
It’s really hard to draw conclusions from the conundrum of circumstances that are STID and STB. Darkness was a bad Trek film but it brought home the best box office of the reboots. Beyond was mostly embraced by fans yet did the worst at the gate. Does that mean what fans want = bad returns? Does this mean if Paramaunt makes another Trek that they should make another Un-Trek Trek like STID? Personally I think Beyond suffered from something behind the scenes. As a fan, I noticed the promotion of the film was rather thin. Why was that or was that just a misconception on my part? I recall that the studio made blatant efforts to market Darkness overseas. Did they do the same for Beyond? Part of me is thinking Paramount may not even know what they have with Star Trek. But who knows?
Goodness, we agree. or at least this handle I agree with.
STID was so bad it burned off the goodwill from 2009. Beyond was almost starting from scratch and had an uphill battle. The fact beyond wasnt that great and didnt have the same hype as 2009 is why it wasnt as successful.
2009 actually attracted a lot of lapsed fans and non-fans. I knew many people that saw it who knew nothing about Trek but liked 1) Pine & Quinto 2) the generic tent pole hype 3) their bf/gf/spouse dragged them along. And they all liked it.
STID though? Those same people told me it looked good (effects), wasnt boring but they didnt get it. They didnt get Khan, they didnt understand what was happening. They were confused and it wasnt a fun film.
One friend, I explained Khan and she replied “ohhhhh okay, that makes more sense…cool!” like the idea of Khan in Space Seed & WOK made STID better in a way because the character seemed so random and out of place.
So now you’ve chased away all those fans above and beyond the hardcore Trek fans. How do you get them back? Not with the marketing of Beyond. That was the problem.
If Beyond had been really good and had great word of mouth, maybe. But it didnt. It was a decent film and had some moments that were the best of the JJ series, but it wasnt “epic” enough of a story and had tons of plot holes.
It was the classic “meh, it was ok” response. Not bad, not great. And thats not getting the general public out to see it.
What never ceases to amaze me are the constant reminders that Star Trek Beyond underperformed as though it were a statement on Star Trek Beyond, when really I think that underperformance was a statement about Into Darkness. Into Darkness over performed largely on the merits of ST 2009 and remains a pretty awful movie after which I think the newfound enthusiasm people had for Star Trek tanked and thus so did Beyond a couple years later. IMO, Beyond is the better of the three movies, even though in the end I’ll take the prime universe over any of it.
You’re confusing fan perception with general audiences. STID is the most well-liked of the three among non-Trek fans.