Things seemed to be ramping up in development for the next Star Trek feature film, but now they’ve gotten quiet in the two weeks since it was reported that Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth walked away from the negotiating table over a salary dispute. Today we have actor John Cho (Sulu) responding to questions about the project as well as director Kevin Smith jumping in to offer suggestions for how Paramount can move forward.
Cho would rather not know the details on the status of ‘Star Trek 4’
John Cho has been doing a media tour for his new film Searching, where has been getting questions about the next Star Trek movie. In general, Cho has been saying he is in the dark about what is going on and, unlike his Trek co-stars Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg who have both already met with Star Trek 4 director SJ Clarkson, it appears he’s happy not knowing what’s going on with development. He told USA Today:
I know very little about this. I’ve heard we’re going to do one. But beyond that, I don’t have details. I’d rather not know; I don’t want to lie. The boring answer is to wait for the powers that be to make a decision.
Also speaking to USA Today, Cho offered a tongue-in-cheek solution to how to get the next Star Trek to perform better than Star Trek Beyond:
I actually wasn’t aware [Star Trek Beyond] underperformed. I thought it was a great movie. See how little I pay attention to these things? I don’t know what to say … maybe more webcam Sulu close-ups.
Sulu: A Star Trek Story?
Speaking of more Sulu, when talking to CNET, Cho was asked what if Star Trek went down the same road as Star Wars with character-focused movies like Solo: A Star Wars Story, and specifically one with him as Sulu. He replied:
If Solo, why not Sulu?
Cho then revealed a bit of behind-the-scenes information about Star Trek and a bit of franchise confusion for Captain Kirk actor Chris Pine, telling CNET:
I don’t know if there is a day shooting Star Trek where Chris Pine did not call me Solo.
When later asked what was his next project, Cho said he is doing a feature film that hasn’t been announced yet, so he couldn’t say anything about it. Searching director Aneesh Chaganty jumped in, joking it would be a Sulu movie, and Cho then chimed in with “Yeah. Sulu: The Star Trek Story.”
Kevin Smith suggests settling for just one Chris for ‘Star Trek 4’
This week on his video/podcast Fatman on Batman, geeky director Kevin Smith weighed in (with some adult language) on the Star Trek 4 salary dispute with the two Chrises. Smith expressed his admiration of J.J. Abrams 2009 Star Trek film, noting the “fantastic” opening scene with Chris Hemsworth as the father of James T. Kirk, and how he thought it was an “awesome” idea to bring Hemsworth back for Star Trek 4. He is dismayed over the salary dispute, noting “I really want to see this shit happen.” Smith even offered specifics, suggesting Pine and Hemsworth could be offered $10 million up front and 10% of the back end profit of the film.
Fatman on Batman co-host Marc Bernardin noted the same issues that seem to be weighing on Paramount’s accountants and executives, that there is the rest of the cast to pay and the Star Trek films aren’t bringing in the same level of money as Marvel movies. Even still, Smith opined that Paramount has limited options saying:
I think Star Trek really has no choice. They can’t recast. Chris Pine is fantastic. It was chancy bringing another Kirk into the world. They found the one guy who could pull it off where it doesn’t sound like an impression, but it totally homages an entire f–king body of work in a character. So, you got to bring him back. Maybe you let go of the dad storyline if you can’t get Hemsworth to come down a little bit. But, you can’t do those Star Treks without that Kirk. He was great.
Smith also pointed to Hollywood agents causing these kinds of salary disputes:
I hope they work out the money thing. I can play mediator if they want. I will be like “Come on man, everyone wants to see this.” You know what the problem here is? Agents are involved. I could just get rid of their agents and talk sense to those actors, I bet they would want to do it, because it sounds like a f–king fun movie. But somebody out there is “No, they got to get paid, these are the dollars that are going to last them into the years of their lives,” and blah blah blah. I’m all for people getting paid, but that’s too good an idea to leave behind. But, if they don’t make enough money to support that financial decision, then maybe they got to meet in the middle. They got to boldly go where no man has gone before. I hope so, because I like that guy and I think that idea is a really good idea.
When the subject turned to how Quentin Tarantino is working on a separate Star Trek film, Smith said he is ready for that regardless of casting, noting “I don’t care if he casts children, I would watch that film.”
More weigh in on the Chris Crisis
A few other outlets have been opining about how Paramount should move forward, with differing views. Here are some suggestions from the media.
Forbes: Chris Pine And Chris Hemsworth Should Take The Pay Cut For ‘Star Trek 4’
Guardian: Why axing Chris Pine would be a very bad idea for the Star Trek films
Cinemablend: Why Star Trek 4 Doesn’t Need Chris Pine
Observer: Why Paramount Should Fast-Track Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Star Trek’ Feature
Stay tuned to TrekMovie for all the updates on upcoming Star Trek movies.
“They found the one guy who could pull it off where it doesn’t sound like an impression, but it totally homages an entire (blankity blank) body of work in a character. So, you got to bring him back. Maybe you let go of the dad storyline if you can’t get Hemsworth to come down a little bit. But, you can’t do those Star Treks without that Kirk. He was great.”
This is so hitting the nail on the head on both subjects. Pine does exactly what Kevin Smith states. It would be a very poor decision to try to recast him. Also if your concerned about cost 86 the Hemsworth revival & go with a different story if needed.
JJ & Paramount screwed themselevs by announcing this so long ago and before (it seems) locked deals where in place.
@Riker001 — Pine doesn’t do it for me, he lacks a certain confidence. I’d rather have seen what Hemsworth would have done with the role. In fact, I wouldn’t mind recasting Hemsworth as Kirk, and have him play his father as well with some prosthetics. Just my 2 cents. YMMV
I agree. When I saw him the first time, I said, “Kirk Lite”.
Hemsworth plays George Kirk, have you even seen the first movie?
I agree. pine never did it for me as kirk. He just came across as bratty. I could care less if he returns as kirk.
Pine really hit his stride in Beyond. THAT was a great depiction of a young Kirk and even a story I could have seen young Kirk experience in the Prime Universe. I was excited to see where this was going by the end of Beyond.
Yeah, agree with that PEB. He never felt like Kirk for me until Beyond. But in that movie he won me over a bit.
He’ll never measure up to Shatner in the role (even though he’s a better actor and bigger star)because the Shat is so iconic, not least in terms of his mannerisms. But I think Beyond showed he could still bring a great deal to the part that convinced you he was the character in question.
Agreed, he really nailed in Beyond.
I think that was kind of the point of doing prequels / the Alternate Reality in the first place. For the non-core-fan movie audience, they neither know nor care about Kirk’s backstory. The point is to *make* them care, to show the character passing through trials and tribulations.
In those first 2 films we saw him travel the road from an undisciplined ‘genius repeat offender’ towards the Captain we know. But the point is, we see him earn it, and pay for it in blood (and he even dies, temporarily), and we the audience travel that road with him.
Otherwise the character of Kirk can be, as some have sagely pointed out, an annoying Mary Sue character – top of his class, youngest captain ever, bends the rules all the time and gets away with it, always knows what to do – that is unrealistic and hard to relate to. But it’s easier to have a hook into the character if we see raw potential shaped by circumstances, to see how they meet the challenge.
By Beyond, we certainly were seeing a more mature Kirk, 3 years into the mission, a more seasoned leader. I hope we see more of that in the next movie, whenever it’s made.
I think that’s a fair point about Kirk’s evolution, Fred, but I’d say that the problem is that the trials and tribulations for Kirk in both of the first two films was just too similar. Similar promotions and demotions to get from plot point A to plot point B. And some of that was an over reliance on Pike as the deus ex machina. In contrast, Spock’s arc across both films, while also flawed in some respects, still seemed much more . . . logical.
I agree that Pine’s take on Kirk was excellent in Beyond. But I would also argue that a lot of that characterization was in the writing. It really felt like a young Kirk that was in the process of evolving.
Hated Pine in the first film, loved him in the other two. Yes he has grown both as an actor and with the character. That’s why I think it would be a huge mistake if Paramount tried to make another film without him. If this was the second or even third film, maybe, but I think he’s become too ingrained as Kirk to just replace him now. And especially for the newer fans who never watched TOS or seen Shatner’s version. To them, he IS Kirk, period. It’s not to say he can’t be replaced but it would be a risk. One Paramount really can’t afford.
I think the real question, Tiger2, is whether Trek going forward *needs* Kirk at all.
If you mean a Trek without TOS, obviously it doesn’t. Trek is bigger than one character or characters. But I have a feeling they will always try and bring Kirk back in some way because I’m guessing the merchandise does best with them.
Which is the other irony of the situation because the Kelvin movies were made so Paramount can have their own merchandise to sell with TOS characters and the Kelvin merchandise has been a dud. TOS fans don’t seem interested enough in those products. Its probably another reason these films are on burrowed time since merchandise is another big component to these franchises and Kelvin is not pulling its weight in that arena.
If you are talking about TV then no, it doesn’t *need* Kirk. If you are talking the feature films, then they kinda sorta do. They have already decided that TOS cast was the pinnacle which was why TBTB went with the reboot of Kirk and Spock and Co. They figured those characters resonated with more potential movie goers than rebooting Picard & co. If they felt TNG characters were more loved or carried more resonance that is the route that would have been taken. I’m 100% certain of it. Only if the KU films had done far more business than they did would Paramount felt confident enough to go out and do something like Sulu: A Star Trek Story.
Naw…he not worth whatever money he is asking for. Yeah…its a pay cut….but goes to show he is more interested in the money than the role. Many actors have taken a pay cut to see a project off the ground.
I agree; Pine nails the kind of Kirk they’ve been asking them to play. He wasn’t asked to play a Kirk that was much like Shatner’s Kirk until Beyond, but once he was asked to actually play that, he showed that he could. He’s really very good.
I have ZERO need to watch Kirk’s Daddy issues again. Re-sign Chris Pine, who does an amazing job as young Kirk, and write a script that doesn’t need Hemsworth. One involving exploration, say. :-)
But do Paramount ever listen to us. NO.
Thank God for that.
DO they HAVE to have Kirk’s dad? Just change the story! Why is it so hard? Maybe they don’t want to lose the money spent on the script?
I dunno. Kirk’s dad can stay, but he doesn’t have to be played by Hemsworth. Recasting this guy wouldn’t an issue at all. Pine is essential,Hemsworth isn’t, even if they want to role with daddy…
As far as I know the script was written by two relatively unknown writers who have never actually had a script of theirs shot (the same guys who worked with Orci on the last movie before he got fired). So that script probably wasn’t too expensive. There are probably at least 2 reasons why they may not want to change the story: 1) They announced the return of Hemsworth 2 years ago, so dropping him now is bad news, and 2) developing a new story/script takes time.
A third reason they may not want to redo the script, and this is just supposition, is that this movie may serve as the last of the Kelvin films – and somehow George Kirk will play a role in “resetting” the timeline, or alternative universe, or whatever… I suppose they could re-work it somehow, but it would be a nice book-end to have Hemsworth back to wrap up these films, before transitioning to the new Tarantino Universe of films.
“before transitioning to the new Tarantino Universe of films.”
Errr… Tarantino universe of films? Sounds like a stretch… I guess he’s just doing this one gig set in some sort of ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’ alternate timeline, probably wrapped up by the end of the movie. An entire Quentinverse sounds neat but I don’t think he’ll be back for a second one. Also I doubt they’ll be doing R-Rated Trek forever… It’s most likely a one-shot…
But hey, color me in if they role with the Quentinverse! The only universe with a quentin signature to distinguish itself from the rest…Quentin Torpedoes and the infamous Quentin Slipstream Drive included…
Remember Tarantino pitched an idea, which was then fleshed out by a script writer. Tarantino isn’t even necessarily directing the movie. So it’s certainly possible his idea starts a new film series, it doesn’t require him to direct the next installments.
No one, anywhere, has suggested the QT project, if it even happens at all, is anything but a ‘one off’ project….
You mean Payne and McKay, the guys that just got hired for the Middle-earth series on Amazon, the most expensive and ambitioned series ever?
Yes, I’ve heard that they’ve been hired by Amazon. I wish them luck. They must have done something to impress the bosses at Amazon. Still doesn’t change that they don’t have any credits, yet, that have made it to the screen. If that Amazon show comes to pass it will probably up their profile a lot.
Yeah, this is an unusual choice I think, perhaps they came relatively cheap when compared with the show itself so Amazon wanted to hire them, but professionally I wouldn’t hire guys who don’t have necessary experience to helm such an expensive or ambitious show. Well, there is a chance they can surprise us, but first we need to see some of the things they did.
@ alphatrion: These days, most (big-budget) TV shows seem to have a long list of (executive) producers so Payne and McKay won’t be completely on their own. Maybe the assumption is that, since this is based on existing material (the books), less can go wrong. The job of a showrunner is to steer the overall direction of a show. In this case, the direction seems to be given by the source material unless they go for a more loose adaptation.
I find that surprising because to my knowledge they have never had a script that made it as far as filmimg.
I said the same thing about Sanford and Son. Ditch the dad!
VZX, my guess is Paramount wants to start sooner rather than later. If they change the script then that can be a huge delay to work out another story. Remember how bad it was changing the script in Beyond.
I think Paramount just wants to avoid that mess again. But these films are just sounding more and more like a pain to do. If they actually get this one made and it bombs pretty sure this is it. If they don’t get Pine back and make it without him I’m almost certain that’s a guarantee.
A script is being developed. They can have anything they want at this point, this thing is a long ways away from principle photography. The studio has spent almost nothing, so tossing a script in a minimal financial risk at this point.
You are right Phil. Pre-production will take at least seven years. Best, case, we are looking at a 2030 release.
I watched a video that suggested that the announcement of Chris Hemsworth was to get investors interested in investing in the next Trek movie. Allegedly, Paramount is pretty much out of money.
So no “Thor”, no investor interest?
@Trellium G — I wouldn’t be surprised. Hemsworth is one of the biggest stars from the mainstream movie world Trek has ever had associated with it. Not to slight Zoe, who is likely now the second biggest — but she’s not headlining her own films yet the way Hemsworth is. He’s a guy who might appeal to a crossover Marvel audience, Zoe to a lesser degree. Neither are big enough in my book to do what Trek needs to be done to take it to a new level of box office bank, but Paramount can’t really afford to make those movies at the moment. They gambled on a cheap unkown cast, and none of them really broke out, except for Zoe who is still not quite a top box office draw yet. Put Tom Hanks in this movie, as Kirk’s aged father, or Ryan Reynolds as Gary Mitchell, and see what happens.
Hemsworth’s big as Thor, but his non-Marvel box office isn’t all that great. Things like “In the Heart of the Sea”, “Rush”, and “12 Strong” were flops. So his success as Thor clearly can’t be counted upon to get more rear ends into movie theater seats.
Still it looks like studios are banking on his draw. I have seen none of the films you mentioned so I can’t say if they are any good. But I’m sure each studio expected Hemsworth to bring in an audience.
I liked them all, but hits they weren’t. His only other real hits are “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “Star Trek”, and he had only a bit part in Star Trek.
Star Trek will never break 500mil let alone 400mil. The movies are just not blockbusters like Avatar, Star Wars or Avengers. Star Trek movies will always bring in 150mil to 350mil, that is the ceiling sadly.
That’s just moronic. With inflation, any half-decent Trek movie of significance 20+ years from now will easily break 500 mil.
You’d be well advised to consider more carefully using the words “never” and “always.”
Even adjusted for inflation no Star Trek movie, including Trek 09 and Into Darkness, has broken the $350m mark domestically or the $500m internationally, so while I agree with the poor choice of words history is on his side and it’s not an unreasonable comment. Trek just doesn’t have the draw some other franchises do, which, in my opinion, is why the movie series was probably better off in that mid budget range using cast members from the TV shows. If an instalment like Voyage Home did well the studio could more easily turn a profit than having to plow huge money into massive spectacle blockbusters. They made a rod for their own backs the second they decided Trek had to be up there with the biggest tent pole movies.
Well said, true.
Sure. But “somethoughts” just categorically said no Trek movie would ever top a $500 million dollar value in the future. That is moronic.
Not moronic if based on historical facts. When a star trek movie breaks 500mil without adjustments and made during the initial release, please let me know.
YOU NEVER SAID THAT IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST. You are only qualifying this now because El Chup and I educated you on this.
Nice try! :-)
I was hoping posters here had more common sense and didnt need things to be spelled out for them or assume xyz :)
Exactly, but I was happy to assist you to understand this. :-)
Paramount needs to find something else to use for their blockbuster releases and go back to making Star Trek films with more reasonable budgets for the fans. The best Star Trek film, TWOK, was overseen by Paramount’s television unit.
You should research and see how much the films have made even if it was adjusted. Star Trek has never cracked 500mil at the box office and never will. Star Trek has good fanbase but will never be a Star Wars or Marvel hit.
Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation
Rank Title (click to view) Studio Adjusted Gross Unadjusted Gross Release
1 Star Trek Par. $320,260,100 $257,730,019 5/8/09
2 Star Trek: The Motion Picture Par. $303,799,200 $82,258,456 12/7/79
3 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Par. $267,624,500 $109,713,132 11/26/86
4 Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $253,862,300 $228,778,661 5/16/13
5 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Par. $248,817,400 $78,912,963 6/4/82
6 Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Par. $210,978,200 $76,471,046 6/1/84
7 Star Trek: First Contact Par. $192,272,600 $92,027,888 11/22/96
8 Star Trek Beyond Par. $173,012,700 $158,848,340 7/22/16
9 Star Trek: Generations Par. $167,280,400 $75,671,125 11/18/94
10 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Par. $165,893,500 $74,888,996 12/6/91
11 Star Trek: Insurrection Par. $136,256,900 $70,187,658 12/11/98
12 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Par. $121,911,100 $52,210,049 6/9/89
13 Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $68,229,800 $43,254,409 12/13/02
TOTAL: $2,630,198,800 $1,400,952,742 –
AVERAGE: $202,323,000 $107,765,596 –
Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year
1 Star Trek Into Darkness Par. $467.4 $228.8 48.9% $238.6 51.1% 2013
2 Star Trek Par. $385.7 $257.7 66.8% $128.0 33.2% 2009
3 Star Trek Beyond Par. $343.5 $158.8 46.2% $184.6 53.8% 2016
4 Star Trek: First Contact Par. $146.0 $92.0 63% $54.0 37% 1996
5 Star Trek: Generations Par. $118.1 $75.7 64.1% $42.4 35.9% 1994
6 Star Trek: Insurrection Par. $112.6 $70.2 62.3% $42.4 37.7% 1998
7 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Par. $96.9 $74.9 77.3% $22.0 22.7% 1991
8 Star Trek: Nemesis Par. $67.3 $43.3 64.3% $24.1 35.7% 2002
Looking at that inflation chart, it’s crazy just how badly Beyond did WHEN you think how much they paid for it. Basically it sold way less tickets than super cheap budget films like TWOK, TVH and TSFS did which all would easily be under $50 million in production costs today. First Contact cost more than those but I doubt it would be any higher than $80 million with inflation and easily outsold Beyond. At least domestically.
This chart shows why Paramount is so nervous to spend a lot of money on the next one. The series budget is just too big when they are spending a lot more for less ticket sales.
I can certainly understand why Paramount wanted bigger Trek films because we live in tent pole franchise worlds now but Trek was cleaning up with TOS and TNG films because the budgets were lower so they were easily making 3 times the money of what they cost. Profit margin was obviously lower but it was a guaranteed profit basically every time. Nemesis was the franchise first real bomb but when you’re only paying $60 million in the first place the sting isn’t so bad like when you’re paying three times as much like Beyond.
Yes, roi is key. No Star Trek film will ever break 400mil or 500mil usd for domestic totals on initial run/release. Worldwide totals wont break 500mil either for same yr release without relying on adjusted numbers for inflation. End of day is how much return on investment the film made, not waiting for 50yrs of adjusted numbers. I hope I am clearer for the borgklingon butt hurt poster.
LOL don’t worry about that guy.
But yes I agree I don’t see a Star Trek film making over $500 million worldwide. Definitely not domestic lol. It’s NOT impossible, it’s just improbable so when you are the one footing the money for these films you have to be realistic of its chances.
I think at one point the Kelvin films could have done that well but Paramount didn’t strike while the iron was hot. STID should’ve came out 2-3 years tops and that movie probably would’ve made over $500 million because the excitement was still building over the first one. It did get close but seeing how much it fell in the domestic box office was the first indication the hype wasn’t as strong as before. Sadly by the time Beyond came around the new fans the 2009 film had all but disappeared. It was mostly the same long time fans seeing the film and even they didn’t seem excited about it. People just stopped caring.
What’s sad is the same thing is happening again. It looks like it’s going to be four years between Beyond and the next one and even less new fans will care. It can still do well, but it’s no guarantees anymore. They squandered these movies.
RE: The other person’s response to you here: “LOL don’t worry about that guy.”
That poster made this big proclamation here that he promised that he was going to ignore me, then posted like 10 more times directly to me, and now is responding to me under the guise of responding to you.
When a person makes a big public announcement that they are going to do something, just do it and drop all of the self-serving nonsense and indirect insults to others. It’s not that complicated. Say what you mean; mean what you say.
Figures in the millions. Adjusted for inflation world wide box office
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): 495.20
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): 454.28
Star Trek (2009): 436.97
Star Trek Beyond (2016): 346.96
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986): 265.19
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982): 229.56
Star Trek First Contact (1996): 213.91
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984): 187.21
Star Trek Generations (1994): 180.33
Star Trek Insurrection (1998): 160.65
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991): 152.05
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989): 109.68
Star Trek Nemesis (2002): 87.85
Yes, I should have said domestic box office. Even if it was worldwide box office, my comment still holds pretty well.
As an international Trekkie, yeah unfortunately Trek also doesn’t do that solid of a job internationally too. So it will sadly never reach that 1 billion dollar mark if Paramount is indeed looking for that mark. I think Paramount should manage their expectation with Trek more carefully and give the films a budget according to that. They have to make it so that 500 million dollars internationally is not considered a failure.
It seems that Paramount has adjusted their expectations and is aiming for a lower budget: The script is written by two relative unknowns, they hired a TV director and reportedly are trying to lower the actors’ salaries.
Yes. The thing is, Paramount has made some profitable Trek films. They just need to be smaller budgets. There is no need for a Trek movie to be $150 million. They could do an excellent Trek flick for less than 100. It’s more about the story. They don’t need to spend millions putting corridors on gimbles so actors could run on the walls and roofs of the ship as it’s listing. That may fly in Star Wars but it just is lame is Star Trek. I’d rather see the conflicted face of Kirk watching his ship get torn to pieces for 5 seconds than 5 minutes of hopping over hallways avoiding falling debris.
You just don’t understand how inflation works. If we are having this conversation in 25 years, when prices are about double versus today, a reasonably well received Star Trek movie THEN is going to bring in at least $500 million dollars. Or if you prefer, pick 50 years from now when prices would likely quadruple.
Google “inflation” and study this a bit and you will find out just how silly your remark was that all Trek movies of the future will never top $500 million.
This is just silly that you actually believe that, no offense.
For argument sake lets say box office totals on initial same year run/release without adjusted inflation for world wide numbers, star trek will not break 500mil usd. Better?
A Star Trek movie that is decently received in the year 2043 will easily break $500 million. But if you are around then and wanted to adjust it for “2018 dollars”, then you could say it was only at like $250 million dollars in “2018 dollars.”
You original post was just wrong. Now it sounds like you are qualifying it with inflation adjustments, and I don’t disagree with that. THANKS!
So my assessment that Star Trek will never break 400mil domestic usd or 500mil usd worldwide during release, stands. End of discussion! Thanks for participating.
No, but you NEW assessment, that for future Trek movie earnings, if the dollar values of those earning are converted back into 2018 dollars, they will not likely hit 500 mil, I kind of agree with.
But that is not what you originally said.
I think they can average a bit higher than that. STID actually did about $470 million so that’s not true they can’t do over $400 million. The first two films averaged around $420 million. It was Beyond where it bombed pretty bad.
But I have to agree I don’t think any film is going to do over $500+ million and that’s pretty much chump change these days for most big movie properties. But $400 million is reasonable. Yeah it’s not Transformers or Black Panther but it’s still profitable if they keep the budget under $150 million. That’s why I think these films are coming to an end if we get a fourth movie or not. Look how hard Pine is playing hardball. If they can’t get make them under a certain amount because of all the money they are paying the cast, then they probably should just wipe the slate clean and come up with a new idea in a few years.
Sadly most TOS fans seem to hate these films instead of love them so they won’t be that missed for most fans.
Yeah, I only like Beyond out of the three.
I think this will be the last one. I predicted this series would fizzle out way back in 2009. Even then you could see the likes of Saldana and Pine were up and coming Hollywood stars. The were beyond (no pun intended) the various TV casts in respect of talent and their future in the industry (not least because they are better talents). It was obvious the bugger they got the more expensive they would become and the harder to secure). I believe Pine was originally promised $6m for this movie, according to reports at the time he originally signed on, and is obviously holding out for at least that amount given that Hemsworth would likely be paid as much (he earned $5.4m for Infinity War). Quinto will likely want parity with Pine and with Saldana and the rest of the cast, including the requisite star name bad guy, you’re probably looking in excess of $30m in primary cast salaries before the picture is off the ground.
Of course, everyone poo pooed me back then and told me this cast would be with Trek for decades like the TOS actors. But common sense suggested otherwise.
Well I think we should look at the example of Ant man films here. Both of them did about 500 million, perhaps slightly higher but Marvel has no problem with those numbers because they were always expecting that kind of money from Ant-man, they know that it will never reach Infinity War numbers. I think Paramount needs to take a playbook from Marvel here.
Ant-Man is a GREAT example. Both films also cost 10s of millions less than all the Kelvin films as well. About $50 million less than Beyond did. They are actually the cheapest Marvel films made because they seem to know they aren’t going to be huge hits. Ant-Man and the Wasp looks like it may do a little better than the original film but not by much. But still much better than any of the Kelvin films.
That’s why Paramount is paying too much for these movies. They cost just as much as every other major blockbuster out there but makes nowhere near the money as them. That’s why I’m guessing they may end them if the next one can’t do over $350 million or maybe use the Tarantino story (assuming they like it) with a new cast.
And now Hemsworth is the 4th highest paid actor. I guess Paramount really can’t afford him unless they dump Chris Pine and have Hemsworth assume the role of Kirk. I’m betting they are wishing they could go back and do the casting differently for the first movie.
Jesus the fourth highest paid actor??? Funny I remember getting into an argument with someone who said Hemsworth ‘needed’ to do this movie lol. Not when you’re the fourth highest paid star in the world you don’t.
But if true I find that ridiculous and I don’t think him playing Kirk would’ve added that much difference box office wise. Because the guy has only appeared in one bomb after another. The only films that makes money are his Marvel movies, which is the only reason why he can ask for so much now. When people talk about overpaid actors, this is the perfect example of one.
Of course the irony of all of this is Paramount only wanted the story about George Kirk because Hemsworth is such a big star now and they want to capitalize on it. But my guess is the film wouldn’t make any more or less money if a total unknown played that role. Hemsworth hasn’t proved anyone cares about his movies when he’s not playing Thor. But he’s probably worth $100 million minimum at this point so what does he care?
“Paramount only wanted the story about George Kirk because Hemsworth is such a big star now and they want to capitalize on it. But my guess is the film wouldn’t make any more or less money if a total unknown played that role. ”
I wholeheartedly agree with the above comment. They do not NEED Hemsworth. At all.
Outside of his iconic Thor role, he’s not worth it. “Red Dawn”, “Blackhat”, “Rush”, “In the Heart of the Sea”, “The Huntsman: Winter’s War”, “12 Strong”. The only one that made a profit (by the ‘”Star Trek Beyond” was a flop’ definition so prevalent here) was the dirt cheap to make “12 Strong”.
He hasn’t had a non-Thor box office hit since the first “Huntsman” in 2012.
@Trellium G — I’d watch that film. I wonder if there’s enough loyalty within the cast, that Quinto, Saldana, or the others would walk away in support of Pine though if Paramount did that …
Seems simple to me. Keep Pine and recast Hemsworth. He was barely in the 2009 film anyway. His part can and should be replaced by another great actor
Those collars…was the crew attacked with the, “change for the sake of change” ray?
Ironically, I loved the high neck collar…
Me too! They made the uniforms stand out more and come off more formal.
Yes. They look more tailored. The Trek 09 uniforms always looked a bit ill fitting to me, almost like loose sportswear.
I think of them as PJs
Yes, more suitable for meeting aliens and representing the Federation … plus, BONUS! Women actually get to have rank stripes on their skirted uniform! W00t!
Yep. An improved I thought.
“I don’t care if [Tarantino} casts children, I would watch that film.”
Totally with Smith on this, and I don’t even much like the Kelvinverse.
For a low cost, this is what you do –
Sign Chris Pine, and bring in Robert Pine as the elder George Kirk.
For a big cost, but a huge payoff –
Sign Chris Pine, and bring in William Shatner to be George Kirk – or have William Shatner be Tiberius Kirk, Jim’s grandfather.
I have a feeling Shatner will ask for money than Hemsworth is. ;D
I’m joking, but only a little.
Shatner wanted $3m for his proposed Enterprise two parter, so with $5.4m for Avengers Infinity War, Hemsworth isn’t that much further ahead! And those were The Shat’s demand in 2003!
LMAO, are you serious??? He wanted that much just to do the TV show??? Enterprise budget at the time was around $3 million an episode IIRC.
Actually now that I remembered it, Rick Berman said when they were thinking about having him on Shatner wanted his asking price about 10 times above the usual scale fee or something. I remember fighting with someone here who said that was probably not true and Berman was lying. But I never heard what the actual figure was. If this IS true it sounds like it would align with what Berman was saying.
Again, IF that’s true no wonder why no one is begging him to be in anymore Trek productions.
How much was the huge payoff for the last Trek project Shatner was involved in? Sorry, but there isn’t an audience for an ancient Shatner wheezing and peeing himself for ninety minutes.
Man Phil, you’re meaner than I am lol.
I dunno. I think bringing in Shatner now would have a novelty factor that Generations failed to deliver (mainly because McCoy and Spock are absent an Shatner only shows up and the end and doesn’t meet any TNGers other than Picard). So yeah, all about how you use him. I think even if you don’t care for Trek 09. like I didn’t, one still has to say that Nimoy added a lot of significance to the movie that otherwise would not have been there.
I agree Shatner would be a huge novelty factor if he showed up today. He wasn’t in Generations mostly because people just saw him three years prior in TUC. So it wasn’t a big deal seeing Kirk again, it was just cool to see him and Picard in a story together.
Today would be a different deal though. I look at how much fanfare Nimoy got when he said he would return to Star Trek because it was so long since his last appearance. And look at Stewart coming back as Picard, that is even bigger news because people want to see the 24th century again and Stewart will be leading the show unlike Nimoy who was really a small supporting player end of the day, even if pivotal. It was great to see him back though. I was at the premiere in Sydney and he got huge applause when he first showed up in the film.
I think Shatner would get big fanfare coming back too, but I think Paramount thinks not really enough in terms of making it a big enough hit, especially with his asking price. And I said this many times, the story is just much harder to do because he’s been dead for over 20 years and he doesn’t have a connection to anyone more. And why I doubt he’ll ever be seen again as Kirk.
And a big final battle on the Golden Gate Bridge with Grandpa Kirk getting crushed by the bridge collapsing at the end?
Bridge on the captain!
This does not sound like the comments of an actor ‘finalizing his contract’. This sounds like a professional who’s been told if a studio makes a movie, he’d be considered for a part.
Sorry, but the only people peddling the theory that Trek IV is ramping up are fan sites like this one. What’s actually been told is there is a script ‘in development’, and a director has been retained. That’s it. No cast, no sets, no schedule, no release date from anyone in the know. Until that happens, all we have are rumors.
Phil, I give you credit for using this short pause in the films development to say, “I told you so.” :-)
We shall see.
You can’t pause something that hasn’t really started. The headline isn’t “John Cho Awaits Shooting Schedule…or finalizing contract’, it’s ‘awaiting a decision’.
I told you so….
If what i have read in the media is to be believed they have not yet secured funding. Paramount would be bankrupt without Mission Impossible.
My understanding was that it had. Actually, what pulled Paramounts bacon out of the fire was A Quiet Place, 332MM on a 17MM budget. Fortunes could change again if Bumblebee stinks up the box office at years end.
Simple. Pay Chris Pine. Recast George Kirk with Roseanne; blame a transporter/quantum time warp accident. Kill the character at the end. Audience goes home cheering.
Keep Pine, he really has become the Kirk we need.
Recast Hemsworth alla Captain Pike style in a wheelchair.
Agreed. If they insist on doing the George Kirk story we don’t really need Hemsworth to do it
They could get one of Hemsworth’s brothers for a lot less I bet
could just say kirk has been captured by the klingons and just have a fun movie with kirks dad and crew with a great space adventure
I think Pine risks ruining the pay-wagon here for the entire Kelvin Cast. If he is not willing to make a deal soon, it’s possible that Paramount will ditch this movie entirely and move onto Tarantino Trek…and then anything goes, including re-casting the entire cast. Can you image a TOS crew presented to us by Tarantino as in their later years, with DiCaprio as Kirk and Clive Owen as Spock?
Doubtful, but you never know?
Clive Owen as Spock? ROFL.
Ha ha. That laugh brightened my day. Cheers.
Cool ! :-)
I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with Kevin Smith more, I don’t know where gets the idea that Chris Pine was even remotely like William Shatner’s Kirk.
Pay dispute for millions to star in a movie? People are struggling to makes ends meet and will still spend 15 dollars to see the movie. Chris and Chris really are living in a fantasy world.
I think the analogy would be a company agreed to pay you $5000 for a project but after review of financials is only willing to pay you $3000 for the project. I believe a deal is a deal and if the company wants to renege on the deal the employee has every right to say no thank you. It is principle and the honor system.
Not sure how true this is but didn’t Pine hold out of STID for more money? I agree a deal is a deal but if Pine can do it, why can’t Paramount?
So noted man child Kevin Smith’s solution is to throw out the script and start all over again? Yeah, after Beyond I’m sure that’s just what the studio wants.
A movie about Cho’s Sulu as the Captain of the Kelvin-verse’s Excelsior, why not!? :-D
Can’t they do that as a TV series? I’d so watch it.
It has been my opinion all along that Hemsworth should be dropped or recast. We only saw him for a few minutes in one film. The money saved could go towards Pine’s salary. There was a salary deal in place and the company reneged on it. I understand their reasoning for needing to save costs but a deal is a deal and I guess I’d be pretty pissed if they violated the contract too. I thought Kevin’s idea of getting paid a salary plus a back end deal was a good one. I just hope if Pine stays all Star Trek fans will go out and support the movie so more can be made.
@Teresa Lepore — Hemsworth is unfortunately the biggest current popular celebrity name Trek has ever had attached to it. They probably think they need it to guarantee a stronger box office and shore up investors for what is sure to be another Bad Robot budget overrun.
I think it obvious that very well could be Paramount’s thinking. However, evidence strongly suggests that line of thinking to be majorly flawed.
Ditch the daddy issues storyline and Thor, keep Pine..or work around the issue by making a captain Spock movie where the crew has to find Kirk after he vanished in mysterious circumstances in a never explored planet whose alien race has a complex culture similar to no other species.
Think Pine did an excellent job for the character portrayed in these movies, but that character has so little relationship to Shatner’s Kirk you can’t really compare the two. Because they wanted a less experienced, more youthful and immature version of Kirk, they kind of dodged the bullet of somebody having to outdo Shatner’s version. The relationships, the teamwork, the expertise, it’s all different. The Kelvin universe Kirk would be Bailey in the TOS universe.
Seems like the actors should have some common sense and realize that if a movie does poorly they maybe shouldn’t get paid as much for it. Why can’t they setup a tiered payment model that says if the movie reaches $100 million (or whatever) you get this much, if it does $200 million you get this much, $300 million, $400 million, etc.
But, ultimately I think Paramount needs to start over (unless they can convince the current cast to drop their rates some) and don’t try to make Star Trek into a Marvel style action movie. Make smaller $80 million movies and release one per year.
Try to blend the best of both worlds between TV character development (quantity of episodes) and big budget movie making (quality of effects).
Actually most actors do take back end deals where instead of getting a large upfront salary they agree to a smaller one and take a certain percentage of whatever the movie makes. As an example, Tom Cruise may get paid $10 million for Mission Impossible but then he gets 5% of whatever the movie makes (and a lot of times people only think what it makes in the theaters when in reality it can be what it makes in it’s lifetime) so he could easily get another $50+ million for Fallout when you add up box office and home media sales. Again JUST an example.
But it’s the only way a lot of these films gets made today with the asking prices at crazy levels and it’s more fair because people only makes a lot of money if the film is a big hit. I know for Marvel for example, it’s really the only way those films can even get made with so many characters in them and their asking price go up every time they show up again. I imagine Infinity War most got a back end deal of some kind even if small.
IIRC I do think some of the Kelvin actors got that for the sequels as well but the percentage was much smaller like 1-2%. And the sequels didn’t hit that big obviously so that could be an issue too and a higher percent of what it makes.
I completely disagree with that Cinemablend article. You can’t do a movie without Kirk in it! Just no! What a ridiculous suggestion.
As a big Star Trek fan i would watch a captain sulu movie, but would general audiences watch a star trek film without captain kirk. I want to see what the new Excelsior looks like.
Shatner IS Kirk! Kirk IS Shatner!
I say let Hemsworth go. I love him, find him a better actor than he gets credit for, but Hemsworth/Kirk Sr. is not needed IMO. Having him on board will mean less focus on people who already get less screen time than Kirk and Spock, like Uhura and Sulu. Also, I want this franchise to go forward and explore new situations/worlds/adventures.
Pine has to stay, though. I don’t care if he is not the Pine 2.0. I wanted but he is AOS Pine with incridible amounts of chmistry with rest of the cast. You cannot replace him and just pretend it is not a big deal.
Pay the man, that was the deal. Let Hemsworth go. Find a decent script. Stop trying to compete with Marvel, Star Trek is not and will never be Marvel, and trying to copy Marvel will only make Star Trek become a pastiche.
Also, Paramount, we are not stupid: as if cutting Pine or/and Hemsworth’s salaries will make your profits up. As if.
I agree with you, the film should start with the second five year mission of the new enterprise and, explore strange new worlds. Time Travel and Kirk Sr are not needed. Jaylah should be a member of the crew.
I’m of the opinion that they can indeed continue without Hemsworth but not Pine. As usual, Kevin Smith has good things to say. Always enjoyed his insights into the business.
Beyond was a good send off. I say leave it at that and create a new trek film series set in the 30th century prime timeline.
Introduce a new crew. Cast unknown but talented actors . That way the studio save money on the stars salary. These stars get GREEDY…when they make it.
Personally Chris Hemsworth might be worth it…but not Chris Pine. Never did take much liking to him as Kirk.
If you jump forward to the 30th century it doesn’t matter if you go prime timeline or Kelvin timeline. There won’t be any recognizable elements left. Well, you could use the same alien species but that’s about it. Just imagine jumping from 14th century medieval times to the present, only the differences would probably be even bigger because development is much faster today than it used to be centuries ago.
Oooh boy. I’m seeing a few online pundits opining that the Kelvin movies can survive without Chris Pine. Earth to studio: they are barely surviving with him.
Was Kirk a Jedi or a Sith? I forget. I’d love to see him go up against a young Vader.
Please, please what ever happens with the “Chrises”, no Quentin Tarantino’s, These films ate fun PG 13 fonder not the R rated arena that Taren potion lives in. Fingers crossed Paramount stops any consideration of his involvement.