9 Ways Paramount Can Tackle The ‘Star Trek 4’ Salary Dispute With Chris Pine And Chris Hemsworth

Last month, just as things seemed to be heating up for the development of Star Trek 4, it was reported that re-negotiations with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth had stalled. Preliminary deals had been made with both, but those deals had been struck before 2016’s Star Trek Beyond underperformed.

Now in 2018, under new leadership, Paramount has reevaluated Star Trek with more modest ambitions in terms of box office and therefore a more modest budget to match. The problem is, the deals in place for Pine and Hemsworth don’t match the cost-cutting mood, and as of the report last month, the actors were holding the studio to the original deals. Last week Pine said he still wants to do the movie and is waiting by the phone, but it wasn’t clear if he had budged from his negotiating position.

That original report said that Paramount was continuing to move forward, regardless of the impasses. This may have been posturing on the part of the studio, but assuming the that the Chrises don’t eventually come to accept the pay cut, Paramount has a difficult decision to make. We see that the studio has a number of different options on how to handle moving forward, but each comes with trade-offs and risks.

1. Cut a deal on the back end

A “back-end” deal is quite common in Hollywood, allowing part of a salary to be paid up front and apart from a portion of box office returns. By giving Pine and Hemsworth a bigger back end cut of the movie, as was suggested by filmmaker Kevin Smith, Paramount can hold to the new more modest budget. This seems like an ideal solution, but may have already been offered and rejected by the actors if they didn’t want to take on the risk of not knowing their return. In addition, by giving out more of the returns, Paramount and its financial partners are cutting into their own profits. The studio currently needs all the money it can get, and their financial partners may not be willing to take the cut in returns.

2. Increase the budget and pay them

It seems simple to just say, “pay them what they want,” especially for fans who love and value the franchise. However, it’s not so easy in the cold reality of Hollywood show business. Paramount would have to come up with more money, which again isn’t easy for a studio that’s just starting to turn itself around after a couple of bad years. They could look for additional investment partners, but that may be difficult since the last movie underperformed. And any financial partners already signed on (like Skydance) would have to agree to a new budget and new partners, which could impact their return.

3. Pay them within the existing budget

This option means that they pay the originally negotiated salaries without increasing the budget. If they do this it will require cuts in other areas of the production. It is unlikely that savings would be found by cutting into the salaries of the rest of the cast, as they too are now in-demand actors. Things that are more likely subject to the chopping block would include scenes with large set pieces, scenes with heavy visual effects, and so forth. Changes of this nature would require script rewrites–potentially some fairly large ones–to match the new budget. These changes could result in delaying the film.

Expect more scenes with simplified sets to save on budget, like this one from Star Trek Beyond

4. Pay Pine, recast Hemsworth

Since it was first announced in the summer of 2016, it has been clear that Chris Hemsworth’s George Kirk will play a central role in Star Trek 4. Hemworth’s brief opening scene in the 2009 Star Trek movie garnered the actor a lot of buzz and has been a fan-favorite moment, plus Paramount is trying to leverage his subsequent rise to stardom as Thor in the Marvel movies. So dropping Hemsworth to use the money to pay Chris Pine, and then recasting George Kirk with a lesser-known actor helps things stay in budget, but would lose the Marvel star power. If they go this route one has to ask: without the big name attached, what’s the point of bringing back Kirk’s father? The Kelvin-universe Jim Kirk had finally started to get out from under his father’s shadow in Beyond, so dipping back into his daddy issues with a random actor seems like a step backward and is unlikely to hook an audience.

5. Pay Hemsworth, recast Pine

This option seems unlikely, but it would mean that Paramount wants to use Hemsworth so badly as a box office lure that they decide to drop Chris Pine and recast Jim Kirk. Through three films, Pine has become the face of Captain Kirk in the 21st century, especially to the mainstream media. Finding another Kirk, which won’t be easy, means abandoning all of that brand awareness, as well as potentially alienating the fans. This idea was something soundly rejected as a compromise by Kevin Smith on his recent podcast, where he noted that if you are going to recast one of the two Chrises, it can’t be Pine. There is also a risk here of alienating the rest of the cast, who have become a tight-knit group.

6. Pay Pine, remove father character

If the decision is made to keep Pine and lose Hemsworth, Paramount and Bad Robot may conclude it makes sense to drop the George Kirk character entirely, as there is no point without Hemsworth. But, as noted before, it seems that bringing back Kirk’s father is central to the movie as written. This almost certainly would require a major rewrite of the script, possibly even requiring them to start over, which would end up delaying the movie further. There is also the practical issue that Star Trek 4 screenwriters JD Payne and Patrick McKay have signed on as showrunners for the new Amazon Lord of the Rings series and may not be available for major rewrites, adding a new screenwriter search to producer J.J. Abrams’ to-do list.

7. Recast both Chrises

To really save money, Paramount could drop both Chrises and recast James T. and George Kirk. This has the advantage of saving the script and keeping the budget low, but it removes all their star power. This would still have all the risks mentioned above for recasting each individual, including losing a lead actor who has come to be identified as Captain Kirk in the 21st century. Such a move would likely mean recalibrating the budget and box office expectations to something even more moderate, which could risk the involvement of the currently signed-up financial partners.

Father and son

8. Wait for the Tarantino project

If the negotiations with the Chrises on Star Trek 4 remain at an impasse, and Paramount doesn’t like any of their options, the studio can cut their losses and shelve the film indefinitely while they wait until the Tarantino Trek project shapes up. Karl Urban himself has recently suggested he is okay with this option. While Paramount would take a small loss on resources spent to date on Star Trek 4 development, the big downside here is a big gap in time between Trek films, which has other repercussions for Paramount and the franchise. However, this isn’t totally unheard of, and Paramount has waited that long between franchise movies before. The most obvious example is Mission: Impossible 2 (2000) and Mission: Impossible III (2006), which had a 6-year gap. And of course, this assumes that if needed, Paramount and Chris Pine can agree to a deal for the Tarantino Trek film.

9. Start over

As noted above, all of these options come with various risks and downsides for Paramount. It may be that there is no solution that satisfies all parties and includes a return to the Kelvin universe with the full cast. This still leaves Paramount with a couple of ways to move forward.


Think of this option as a bit like what Fox did with The Wolverine in 2013, following three successful films in the X-Men movie franchise. It’s still loosely connected, but in general, it’s a chance to refocus and change the trajectory of the franchise. A spinoff focusing on one main Kelvin-universe character would mean fewer stars to pay. Going this route will require a brand new script, which takes time to write, and then pre-production would get going again. However, this could end up with a fairly quick turnaround once a script is rushed out. Another plus would be that much of the existing sets, costumes, props, etc. should still be usable. It may also be easier to finance with some known quantities for the franchise involved. Which actor and character to chose for the spinoff is a hard choice, and in theory, it could even be Pine’s Kirk. A more likely choice would be Zachary Quinto’s Spock, and John Cho has already started joking about Sulu: A Star Trek Story.

Reboot (again)

Now we come to a pretty drastic option. The studio leadership may decide that it just isn’t worth it to continue along with the same version of the Trek property, so they drop everything: actors, the existing style (designs, sets, etc.), the whole shebang and regroup. It’s likely if they went this route that Paramount and Bad Robot would quickly put feelers out for new talent to develop an entirely new iteration of Star Trek on the silver screen. This is akin to how Spider-Man 4 was in development with Tobey Maguire and director Sam Raimi in 2010, but after a number of setbacks, Sony decided to pull the plug and start over, and very quickly they rebooted the franchise with The Amazing Spider-Man, which was in theaters by 2012. While there are many intriguing possibilities, starting over completely involves introducing new actors, possibly new characters and perhaps a new setting. That increases the cost to marketing and creates additional risks in terms of potential box office without familiar draws, which makes financing harder.

An empty stage and blank canvas to restart the Star Trek films

Other considerations:

While Star Trek 4 appears to be at a standstill for now, the rest of the film industry is not.

Since Star Trek 4 scribes Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne are about to be very busy developing the massive multi-year Lord of The Rings series for Amazon and would almost certainly not be available for developing a new script or a major rewrite, they may not even be available for minor changes that result from some of the above scenarios. This means new writers would need to be brought in and brought up to speed, potentially creating delays for even small changes. It’s possible that producer J.J. Abrams would again reach out to Scotty actor and Beyond co-writer Simon Pegg, who could hit the ground running.

Chris Hemsworth has signed up for a new Russo Brothers movie called Dhaka which keeps him busy until March 2019. Had the Chrises come to an agreement, filming was expected to start on Star Trek 4 in early 2019. Hemsworth’s scenes could potentially be pushed back to the end of production on the Trek film without creating an overall delay in the project.

S.J. Clarkson, currently slated as the director for Star Trek 4, is reportedly on the short list of possibilities to direct the next James Bond film, which is in pre-production now and would start filming in early 2019. If the Chrises do work out a deal, this would be another potential conflict and may result in a last-minute search for a new director.

A final consideration is the calendar. Previously, Paramount has had a perfect place for Star Trek 4 on their summer 2020 slate. A few weeks ago, though, Paramount made some changes in their schedule and now Top Gun: Maverick, which was originally scheduled for July 12, 2019, will be released on June 26, 2020. That puts a hole in Paramount’s summer 2019 calendar, but it’s far too late to fill that with Trek. There’s no reason that Paramount can’t have two tentpoles in summer 2020– they have done so before. 2009 saw both Star Trek and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen hit the big screen.

What option would you choose?

Playing armchair Paramount exec is a time-honored tradition with Trek fans. Do you have a favorite from the above choices or possibly a different option? Sound off below with how you would resolve the Great Chris Crisis of 2018.

Keep up with all the news on Star Trek 4 and upcoming Trek films at TrekMovie.com.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’ve chimed on this before, keep Pine, recast Hemsworth. I’m not tied to the hip with an ensemble cast, so if Cho, Urban, Pegg, or Saldana aren’t integral parts to the story, they could sit this one out.

A hard read of anything regarding the development of this project and a 2020 release date was wishful thinking, at best. 2021, at the earliest. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. Paramount obviously isn’t in a hurry.

Keep pine who cares about who plays the dad

If its “2021 at the earliest” just forget about it being a Kelvin universe movie. It’s ridiculous to take five years between movies when other franchises like Fast & Furious can pump out sequels every 1-2 years. The current cast is already getting too old to play “younger versions” of TOS characters.

The TOS cast was to old to play their younger versions, that didn’t stop them. How often the studio chooses to kick out an installment of the franchise doesn’t have a bearing on how the on screen talent does it’s job.

Shatner and Nimoy were 60 when Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was released, and Kelley was 71. Given that Pine is 38 and Quinto is 41, they have at least 20 more years in them, maybe 30.

This cast have a maximum of two films left. And that seems a bit wild as it is.

I think one more film is probably about right. . .

This cast has as many films as they, or the studio want to do. There isn’t a shelf life on the franchise for anyone still drawing breath.

I don’t doubt they probably only have 1-2 films left but in theory they could make films for the next 20 years if they wanted. I just don’t think neither the cast or Paramount will want to stick it out that long. If the film series made a lot more money they would probably make as many as possible but I have a feeling like you it won’t be many more.

We’re not even sure they WILL make another one now although they will probably work something out.

The current situation with the film series seems to have parallels with The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country, in that TFF did not fair too well at the box office compared with its predecessors and so TUC came as a slightly risky proposition, which thankfully Paramount the studio, were willing to take.
On the other hand Paramount were disappointed with the box office for Insurrection compared with its predecessors but decided to press ahead with Nemesis which was even more unsuccessful.
This is a risky business and paying Chris Pine over the odds is a very dangerous business move for the studio to take in this situation.

I completely agree. Once a movie fails in an otherwise profitable franchise, people get nervous. That’s exactly what is happening with Lucasfilm after Solo. The difference with that though is that Solo bombed because it wasn’t their typical brand of film. It was a risky move from the outset but now their entire future slate is in question over it.

After Beyond I can’t blame Paramount at all for being nervous. Beyond should’ve been a big hit looking at all the indicators like the reviews, being a big anniversary year, premiering on a light competitive summer date, etc. Of course their marketing was also to blame as well (not MENTIONING the big anniversary year in any ads was basic incompetency).

But here they are. And I said it myself, if the next one does as bad as Beyond then that’s probably it anyway. When Nemesis bombed, they probably would’ve tried again IF they weren’t paying Patrick Stewart $13 million for Nemesis. They knew no matter what they can’t keep costs down when they are paying so much for the actors they needed, so they wiped it and moved on.

And so yes, IF Pine does get his wish and they pay him what he wants but the film still bombs then it will probably be finished like Nemesis was. Who would risk a THIRD bomb in a row? History repeating itself.

‘solo”s lack of success affects the proposed spin offs not the actual SW movies with ep 9 bound to hit big next year.

If episode 9 fails it will be the last star wars film at least for a while. Solo and Last jedi cost disney over a billion dollars of lost revenue. The boycott against solo was unfair based on last jedi being the most hated entry in the franchise, and thanks to that Obi Wan Kenobi and Boba Fett films were canceled. Fans got films they actually wanted to see canceled because they hated what Disney did to Luke Skywalker.

Agreed skyjedi although I don’t think it was the boycott alone why Solo did so badly. It was probably a good dozen factors including just the bad PR the movie got once the original directors were fired and the fact many just had no real interest in a Solo prequel. People were saying that as soon as it was announced. It probably would’ve done a bit better if people like TLJ more but I don’t think it would’ve been a hit either way. The main issue with Solo is that it felt like a film only for hardcore fans when the majority of its fanbase are casual fans. Sure people like Han Solo, but not enough you needed to base an entire movie around his life.

And I think they are finally understanding that and why the other films like Obi Wan and Boba Fett are on hold if not outright cancelled. They thought just throwing in any OT character was just going to get people in droves to show up. They waaaaaay over estimated their own brand.

Episode 9 is a different deal. It’s the end of what maybe the entire Skywalker saga. And it could be the last time you will ever see Luke and Leia again (definitely Leia unless they recast). So it’s going to be a bigger deal but no guarantees it’s going to do more than TLJ if they hate that one as well.

It will also be the last film Rey is in since Daisy Said she does not want to return to do sequels. When the actress who plays the central role of your franchise wants out it does not bode well. They could make a fourth trilogy, maybe Poe and Finn could return but they would have to create a new jedi hero or heroine.

Wow I didn’t know that. It’s kind of crazy she would want out something that has made her so famous but then I guess seeing how some of the fans have reacted to her I can’t blame her. That may not be the reason at all of course but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was along with other issues.

Us Star Trek fans can be harsh towards the franchise as the last few years have proven but I don’t think we have forced anyone off of twitter over it…yet.

Options 1,2 & 3 are the only viable ones. I think before the end of this year it will be sorted out one way or another.

#6 seems the best choice. Do we really another troubled father-son story in science fiction?

Yeah, I agree. I’m not wild about revisiting Kirk’s father issues in the first place, and if Hemsworth is that expensive, then just forget the whole father plot.

While I wouldn’t mind seeing a Spock-centric movie, Spock is always best with Kirk and McCoy beside him.

That’s the crazy thing about all of this, no one seems to care about Hemsworth and the daddy subplot. It sounds about as exciting as Beyond did.

Yeah lose the script and do something worthwhile and bigger. Hemsworth movie career has been one bomb after the other outside of Marvel. He is not going to suddenly add $50 million more just by being there.

So sick and tired of villains of the week or revenge movies. How about seeking out strange new worlds and civilizations. They are supposed to be explorers. Hopefully the writers can create something better than comic book rehashed storylines or star wars clone number 9.

Of the six TOS movies, the one that made the most money — which is all the studios really care about — was #4, the one that DIDN’T have a villain and the one that actually had some social commentary. Y’know, like Star Trek did when it was on TV. :-)

So not only do I agree with you that I, personally, would LOVE to see a villainless movie, but there’s even evidence that such a movie could win at the box office.

Agreed, Corylea, 100%. But that was 1986, another era (which I loved). Audiences are so different (ie. impatient, distracted) now, I can see something like TVH being a stinker at the box office. Not enough action, etc. The infinite wisdom of internet masses may likely deem it ‘boring.’

That’s what the TV shows are for. The movies are Big Event episodes…

Yeah four straight movies of uber villains seeking revenge against the Federation. It’s gotten very old now. It’s also why the Kelvin films has been disappointing on that end, it’s like they have no other ideas other than that.

Star Trek is a big universe with all kinds of ideas, do something MORE with it.

they should be travelling to planets as wild and exciting as pandora was in ‘avatar’.

Amen to all of that!

I don’t read them much but there’s got to be one or two really great Star Trek books out there that can be adapted for the big screen. If you do something like that doesn’t speed up the process for dealing with the issues that pop up in dumping the Kirk and his Daddy script.

I’d like a Spock-centric movie also. Especially one that has non-destroyed Vulcan homeworld. (Though season two of Discovery may take care of that)

I agree. Especially if such a plot involves even more time travel.

Drop Hemsworth. Dust off PLANET OF THE TITANS and do that instead. Get Dennis Gassner on as production designer, as he is the closest thing to Ken Adam still alive and working. For a bit more continuity with the original TITANS, you could bring in Andy Probert as concept art guy, since he was kind of a Ralph McQuarrie protege.

Cast Ken Wattanabe as the Klingon captain — he’s very good as an actor and probably immensely cheaper than any of the stars who might otherwise be considered (Toshiro Mifune is who was supposed to do the role for the original version.)

Is the Planet of the Titans script in a book or floating around the internet? Has anybody here actually read it?

I’ve read all but one page of Kaufman’s treatment, and it is a pretty big departure from the synopsis that has been making the rounds since Sackett’s MAKING OF ST-TMP described it back in 1980 (that described the version developed by the original writers — this treatment was written after they completed their contract and departed.)

There are parts of this that are incomprehensible (possibly owing to the missing page, which is from an early sequence that takes them from where they were to where they spend the rest of the film), and I don’t think the characterizations are quite right, but there’s definitely interesting stuff. Povill said it wasn’t STAR TREK, but I think there was a flavor of TREK, just that it didn’t have it all properly squared away … YET.

I wonder if the project hadn’t been cancelled, that Kaufman might have had W. D. Richter do a screenplay pass and then it could have turned into gold. Richter also wrote BUCKAROO BANZAI (which I don’t love, though I loved the novelization by somebody else) wrote the director’s next project, the wonderful fantastic BODY SNATCHERS remake, which (don’t laugh) is probably my alltime favorite movie love story along with THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, and one of the best of that era’s ‘political paranoia’ movies.

Some of this interest is nostalgia on my part, but also it owes to the notion that you could possibly get a script to film sooner if you took a story that had most of the beats already worked out and refine it, rather than starting from scratch. HOWEVER … I realize the same could be said for what they did on TMP, taking a rather imperfect IN THY IMAGE teleplay and making it into a more imperfect TMP feature, in which some of the story issues were solved but more were introduced. So it all comes down to the skills of the hands involved.

And no, I don’t have the right to send anybody my copy. Folks I correspond with knew somebody who came across this at Jesco Von Puttkamer’s estate sale, so it was a total fluke find, but its value is not really known so it is not being distributed. Plus I got sent the copy on my birthday, totally by accident that it worked out that way, so it feels like a very special gift in a very unpleasant decade, and I respect the confidentiality and wishes of the sender(s)

There is a detailed break-down of (what is claimed to be) Kaufman’s story on Memory Alpha in the Planet of the Titans entry. It would be very interesting to know if that actually was Kaufman’s story. Does that match what you read in your document?

Some of the story summary there isn’t very clear, so it may be that some of the narrative just wasn’t clear to anybody except the authors.

Wow, that sounds a BIT different than what I have, but maybe there’s a lot crammed into that one missing page, as most of the differences are early on. The stuff about who they find on the planet is all there. I’ll take another look at it tonight, promise.

Cool. I’d love to know if the Memory Alpha description is authentic.

I think that you are right that a trippy hard science fiction story like Planet of the Titans is exactly what movie Trek needs now – something that the movies have never really done.

Gods, is Mifune still with us and working? Wow.

He died in 1997.

Want an easy solution? Chop most of the pointless special effects, and as a result, write a GREAT CHARACTER-DRIVEN STORY WITH TRUE DEPTH TO IT!
And guess what? THAT movie would make a lot more money!
Will they do this? No! F*cking morons!

They could compromise and cut out 30 to 40% of the tedious actions sequences. I checked, and there are only a few dozen people on Earth who are pumped about using Star Trek as a summer action extravaganza. But, this approach might be putting too much hopes on the script. Remember, it was developed by JJ Abrams’ group, so expect the script to be more gimmicky and twisty than a fount of rich drama.

That would be FABULOUS! I wish it would happen, but it seems extremely unlikely. If Spock were real, he could calculate the odds for us. :-)

That is not how screenwriting works. A good FX/action scene does not magically make the next dialogue-driven scene worse. And more importantly, cutting one scene does not automatically make the next scene better or deeper. The “as a result” that you assert is not a thing.

Beyond that (no pun intended), there’s no guarantee that a less splashy Trek film would be a big hit. And calling people effing morons because they don’t agree with your *not-at-all-self-evident* views is really low class and counter to Trek values. #trekvalues

Oh, come on. Individual scenes in screenplays are not written in isolation, and an overall directive to “write a character-driven piece that would be cheap to film” is definitely going to give you a different result than “give us a blockbuster that’ll make us $1 Billion.” Will that necessarily make it a great film? No, but it would be an appropriate change in direction for Paramount after the last two financial disappointments, and definitely in-keeping with #trekvalues for a franchise that got its start as a medium-budget TV space opera.

We’re actually agreed on this (for once), but the ’80s-’90s attitude of “Trek films will never be STAR WARS/MARVEL-level blockbusters, so let’s do it on the cheap and market them for the fans and a smaller subset of the general audience” is not the business model Paramount has been pursuing since Bad Robot came on board, more’s the pity.

Michael Hall,

At one time Marvel did have the STAR TREK comics, is it entirely out of the question for Paramount to pursue Marvel/Disney as a financing partner?

I actually wrote this reply before reading any other, and once I did, I decided to put it here as I totally agree.

Having a limited budget has worked for Star Trek before. Keep both actors, pay what was agreed, and be inventive with the production. Less CGI and space battles. Go for a real character story. Star Trek is at its best when it’s about characters and things that really matter in our current society.

Worked for Logan.

I would go to the start over and reboot again option. I think it’s time we move forward to the 24th or 25th century in the movies. They can use the Kelvin timeline or Prime. If they go the 25th century prime timeline route, they can tie that in to the Picard series. They can even put Sir Patrick to guest in it. If they use the Kelvin timeline, they can just reference what happened to the crew of the Enterprise A after what happened in ST Beyond. The studio can then manage the budget they have by getting new unknown actors. The story doesn’t have to be on an Enterprise ship. (Although I’m curious what a TNG version crew in the Kelvin timeline would be like. They can just get Quinto to sort of pass the baton to the new crew)

They can’t cross the Picard (CBS) project with the movies (Paramount).

Agreed. That would be as crazy as crossing the Avengers (Disney) with Spider-man (Sony). ;-)

They could. It would just require updated contracts. In a universe where the Marvel-Sony Spider-Man deal happens, really anything could happen. (That said, there are probably too many stacked hypotheticals for this particular scenario.)

Start over. Never felt a connection to these JJTrek movies. So reboot or do something that takes place after Voyager. And please stick to the prime timeline.

Only the fans would watch a Star Trek movie set after Voyager.
Perhaps Discovery will one day be passed the baton.
The movies have generally been a celebration of different generations; TOS passes the baton to TNG, TNG pass the baton to TOS again (Prime Spock and the countdown comic). Maybe the Kelvin crew will pass the baton to Discovery…

I have absolutely no problem with Star Trek being made for the fans. Paramount needs to use another franchise for its mindless action blockbusters. Great Star Trek films have been made with lower budgets.

1, 3, 4 and 9 probably are the most realistic. MAYBE 2 will happen and they just increase the budget but since this seems to be about trying to save money after Beyond bombing I just don’t see it happening. 8 is possible but my guess is that script is still far away from happening.

But if 1,3 and 4 doesn’t work out then yeah just go with the nuclear option with #9 and start over. They can still keep it in the Kelvin verse just come up with a cheaper cast and moderate budgets. I don’t think most fans care that much about these movies so they already feel like they are on burrowed time now.

Do something different. Put it on a different ship. Or maybe just a different Enterprise like the B or C. Casual audiences don’t care. Or go back to the prime time line and place it post TUC since that hasn’t been covered yet. That way you have DIS pre-TOS, the new film pre-TNG and the Picard show post-Nem and they are all doing their own thing.

Or place it in the 25th century and start completely anew like TNG did. Just do SOMETHING original for pete sakes.

Pay Pine, recast Hemsworth.
Hemsworth wasn’t in ST2009 long enough to make that great of an impression. True his small part was very touching emotionally, returning to that character with another actor wouldn’t be that big of a deal.
It’s still Kirks story we’re interested in and his evolution as a character.

I wouldn’t worry so much about star power either.
Almost all of the cast of actors have achieve a solid level of star power of their own.
Not even the new Star Wars crap can say that about their actors.
Big Hint there to the POWERS THAT BE. Remember what you have Paramount.

So save yourselves, your new production and us the headache and get on with it.

Post that up on Tweeter, they will hear you better!

3. Pay them within the existing budget

Trek is at its best when effects are secondary to storytelling.

The Kelvin timeline without Pine is dead.

Forget the set pieces and elaborate special effects. The best action scenes of Beyond was when they were all on the bridge of the Franklin, and that was cheap! The best Star Trek movie is Wrath of Khan which is the cheapest, which is saying something. Forget the daddy story, drop Hemsworth, and put together a great Trek story that focuses on character and story with a nifty sci-fi concept that examines the human condition. This can be produced in less than a year and be out late 2019. Paramount makes a big return on investment. And Trekkies rejoice.

Apparently, you know the ends and outs of the bussiness.

Don’t forget that they got quite some models and footage from TMP, which helped the budget quite a bit. But i can’t disagree that Meyer did really good with what he had.

I’d be fine at this point if the movie didn’t happen and Paramount ended up waiting for Tarantino.

There’s a third possibility in Option #9 (Start Over) — rather than do a spinoff of the JJ universe or yet another reboot, they could do a “stand alone” film set in the prime timeline, and hire some familiar actors to reprise their roles, like Patrick Stewart and Jeri Ryan. I’d much rather see Patrick Stewart back on the big screen than on a CBS All Access show run by Alex Kurtzman, and I don’t think CBS can legally stop him from appearing in another project run by Paramount.

I think CBS wouldn’t want that and probably has some clause that Picard stays with them. They already signed him on to do the show so putting him in movies would probably be difficult.

I would love to see Picard back on the big screen like a lot of people but I actually prefer for him to be on TV again because they can really develop his character there. It would be nice to have another film to make us forget Nemesis though lol. But it’s probably a more lucrative idea to keep him on TV.

And I’m hoping we might see 7 of 9 make an appearance on the new show. That’s the beauty of it, it doesn’t have to be regulated to just TNG characters but everyone in that era if they choose to. Yes I know the odds aren’t great she’ll be on but never tell me the odds. ;)

Jeri Ryan actually would make a lot of sense if the Borg are involved in any way during the run of the Picard show. I think her and Patrick Stewart would work great together. They are both very good actors.

My opinion is to reboot the franchise with “Trek 4” and do a Kelvin version of the TNG crew. Imagine what they could do with it. Locutus, Borg, Q and all that.

So redo the most boring Ent crew, but brighten it up with obnoxious and unmotivated lens flares? Then decide the E-D is four miles across and can separate into eighty-six tiny time capsules? That’s “The Worst of Both Worlds.”

Minus the lens flares and I’m good. TNG 2.0 for “Star Trek 4”. Let’s go.

Picards crew are brilliant!

The TNG crew are indeed brilliant, but they won’t mesh well with Bad Robot’s Transformers-inspired view of the Trek universe. (Even the TOS crew’s ability to pull that off was questionable.)

TNG crew is still my favorite crew out of all of them even if it’s not my favorite show.

I would be curious what the Kelvin version of them would be like lol. Maybe Data and Deanna are married. ;)

Great idea! It’s hard to understand, why these guys don’t go into the Star Trek/Borg histoy; best bad guy ever and I still have to guys their origin.

No Borg please.
They’re boring and too easily defeated.
Best new tiresome villains ever created. No thanks.

I think they just want to keep some of Trek mythology mysterious. We still know very little about the Q as well. But I imagine one day we will get a Borg story to cover it. Enterprise was suppose to go into how they found their Borg queen if they got another season. That would’ve been cool!

I do think the Borg are still alive post-Nem since they added them on that sketch a few weeks ago and in Kirsten Beyer’s novels one story covers them so we may see them popping up in the Picard show.

Par, if you’re listening? This fan says, respectfully: no, thanks.

We also didn’t want Khan in the new movies. You saw how well Paramount listened then. ;)

Lets not forget how freaking perfect Carl Urban,Simon Pegg, and Zachary Qinto are. We already lost Anton Yelchin for God’s sake. Hemsworth was interesting in the original because we didn’t know him as Thor yet. Now it’s like having an avenger in the movie and that sucks. There is no way I’m taking him serious as George Kirk. Pine needs to work with his Star Trek family and make his fan base happy knowing two things. 1-We are the ones who love you for bringing us a perfect version of a young Kirk and it is because of that we swept floors and cleaned offices and pumped gas, and delivered papers, and walked dogs, unclogged toilets, poured concrete, and spent our hard earned money to escape if only for a moment. 2-once you prove to us that you are more about the money than the fans, you become a worthless piece of s..t like the majority of entertainers. Your opinion of us will reveal itsel by your decision. Way to kill a franchise Chris..and over money…more the pity

Yeah, sending Pine that message will convince him that the Trek fanbase is definitely worth taking a pay cut over. (sarcasm /off)

I agree with that sentiment. He is popular because we the fans go to see him in movies.. He does an awesome job, but the minute you start squabbling over.. MILLIONS.. of dollars..when we bled and sweat and toil for the money we spend to see him..then he can fuck off, pardon the language. But how seriously shallow can you be..I can imagine an actor/actress whining 8 million isn’t enough you promised me 15. Eff you, I could live the rest of my life on 8 million dollars. You have that money BECAUSE of us. As soon as you tell people that money matters MORE than your fans..you’re finished. Yes I agree you should be paid for your work, but I’ve been a contract worker. Some contracts I made a killing the next few maybe not, but I didn’t stop caring or stop doing the work because my last contract (read movie) paid me more. So if you have to take a pay cut to make an awesome Trek movie with Carl, Simon, Zach, and Zoe to keep the original characters alive..that relationship to them and to your fans..then you should do that. He was funny in this means war, great as jack ryan, great in Wonder woman, trek one and two are awesome.. Make this for your fam and fans not for an extra millions of dollars. Please someone who knows Pine, get this to him or his agency. He’s a human being.. Something has to matter more than money.


First, their were TWO actors in these negotiations, not just Pine.

Second, it takes two to tango. Why does the responsibility for greedily bankrupting the film studio that makes STAR TREK movies fall on Pine and NOT the golfing glad-handing goofs who turned a blind eye to their bottom line while Grey ran it into bankruptcy? Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to show good faith by putting their golden parachute protected salaries on hold 1st before demanding it from others?

OPTION 4 is tenable.


The other big news was the potential re-merger with CBS and consolidation of trek licenses. Somehow I feel like Paramount intentionally stalled the project to wait for the outcome of that. If things had gone differently, we could have had a reunification of the star trek brand, which would have given Paramount a lot of options besides continuing the reboots. Now it’s of the table, so I assume we will soon see Paramount agreeing to their terms and proceeding with pre-production.

Without the entire cast, minus the one lost already. I will not be watching anymore of these movies!

“̶D̶r̶o̶p̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶o̶m̶b̶,̶ ̶K̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶”̶ ̶
Recast everyone, move towards something else.

Or, as Conrad originally put it, “Exterminate all the brutes!” :-)

Drop the father story. This seems like a cringe worthy trope like doing “evil twin” nonsense. No daddy issues please. Pay Pine then kill him off in a rewrite. It’s time Trek did stories with consequences. Also, no more mentally disturbed baddies trying to conquer the universe ala “Ming the merciless”. Nick Meyers knows the best writers, get a good writer with his recommendations. Then Tarintino can have his crack at Trek without Kirk. He knows the realities of the movie business and how budgets can change a story he’s pitched. He’s creative enough to make whatever adjustments would be needed to his original pitch to Paramount. Do something the cast can be proud of. They like each other and each have huge money making careers outside of Trek. They don’t need to make a boring Trek for money.

Recasting Kirk when 4 is supposed to be a sequel not another reboot, would be a disaster. Would Abrams even want Kirk to be recast?

Less action, more drama and character moments and then I don’t care on which ship or which crew it is.

Why do they need Thor ? I know he was in the first one for about 2 min. But is he really that important to the story ?

Unload the boring dad stuff and focus on telling a good story. Pine does a great job as Kirk and the entire cast has great enthusiasm for making these films. Paying Pine (#6) is the best option. Another option not listed is to have Paramount actually market and promote the film once it is made.

Make the movie without them:

We’re back in the academy days. Captain Pike is out training with Spock and Uhura. He beams down to a planet and gets captured. As first officer, Spock has to take over and we see how his romance with Uhura begins. They send out a distress call. Another training ship with McCoy and Sulu comes in to answer that call. Their captain also is captured and Sulu has to take the helm. In a third ship, Scotty ends up taking the helm with Keenser by his side. Each ship must face their own challenges to get away from the planet. Scotty and Keenser rescue Pike. McCoy attends to the wounded while Spock, Uhura and Sulu fight whatever was on the planet in the big showdown.

Excellent.. And no pine..if he wants to squabble over millions let him.

Pine obviously wants to be in the QT-version, so jack up his salary package for that one as an incentive to do ST4 on budget. I’m on the fence as per Hemsworth. Arguably the only reason “Into Darkness” hit over $400m in ticket sales was due to the truly international star-power of Benedict Cumberbatch. Hemsworth may also put more worldwide butts in seats and guarantee a higher box office, and I would love to see him in the role, but Pine is far more important, and George Kirk can ultimately be re-cast.

I don’t think Pine cares who directs it. He simply wants to get paid what he think is owed to him.

I imagine Pine might be more willing to compromise if it’s either a director he really wants to work with or a story he really likes. Actors are known to be willing to take pay cuts for “passion projects” (usually small independent pictures that wouldn’t get made otherwise). However, if he feels that this is just another trip to the well that doesn’t offer anything truly interesting he may not be as likely to budge quickly.

Cancel JJ Crap and remove it from canon. Best solution ever..

I feel similarly, but many others don’t, so we’re stuck with it. Besides, it’s really just “alt-canon” anyhow, so what the hell.

Keep Pine!!!

It’s been so long since the last one and obviously will be a long time until the next one, so I’m pretty ambivalent at this point about the films. That said, I would wish for them to abandon recycling TOS yet AGAIN and try to write something ORIGINAL, with original characters. As a giant TOS fan, even I’d say the universe is bigger than Kirk and Spock. Respect what came before. Stop this inferior rebooting.

I say #6. I don’t know why everyone goes on about the Hemsworth scenes. He wasn’t that great. Heavy breathing isn’t a character. I don’t think the father angle is even that interesting. Kirk’s brother Sam is interesting. There was material cut from ’09 that could be used as flashbacks. I like the idea of an Apollo or Q type figure questioning Kirk’s ability to lead. We know Kirk is a deeply lonely man, “No beach to walk on…” It would be interesting to explore how unlikable Kirk tends to be, “…swaggering, overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood.” Maybe a shapeshifting species can infiltrate the Enterprise and replace certain members of the crew. Kirk’s test is how well he knows his crew. Just spitballing.

Here’s an option. Sale Star Trek to a studio who knows how and what to do with Star Trek. Star Trek (2009) was really good. I watched it yesterday evening and was still really impressed (despite some obvious issues with story continuity). After that movie they kinda of lost their way though. Into Darkness started off great but then was a mess. This isn’t a Khan movie, wait now it is a Khan movie and Khan is White now, not a Sikh, and british, plus all the other bad choices for that film. Then Beyond which would make a great Star Trek episode any day just didn’t seem epic enough for the big screen and had a well acted but poorly written villain. And all of these movies could have been smarter. Paramount use to make good movies. It doesn’t anymore that’s the real problem.

By the time this movie is made they could enter the TMP period

Or at least close the gap between the end of TOS and TMP

They’ve no choice but to keep Chris Pine; he’s the public face of the Kirk role now. And that puts Pine into the driver’s seat on the negotiation. Paramount’s only real leverage is the fact that Pine seems keen to do the Tarantino movie.

Recasting now won’t do much good; it didn’t work out very well for the SPIDER-MAN franchise, and the only way to make it work would be to let the TOS film franchise go fallow for several years. That option ultimately leaves money on the table.

Hemsworth is a different matter, and it’s ultimately a judgment call as to whether the film really needs his star power. I’m skeptical. All of the previous films have had big-name guest stars (Bana, Cumberbatch, Elba), which proved to be something of a mixed bag. Dramatically, Cumberbatch was the wrong choice, although he is a box-office draw. Elba was dramatically right, but did not put butts in seats for BEYOND. Hemsworth is a less compelling actor than either of those two.

The problem with Elba not pulling in people was probably that he was hidden under a rubber mask and unrecognizable for much of the movie. With Cumberbatch, they could put his face on the poster and people would recognize him even in passing. With Elba they had to rely on people actually remembering the actor’s name because they couldn’t show him without spoiling the plot twist towards the end of the movie.

I really don’t think that films should change plots for commercial value but in the case of beyond, I think if they gave away the twist and let him change back halfway through the film it would have been an even better and more relatable film.

I can’t get worked up about this either way. If it happens, it happens. There appear to be several Star Trek projects in the works anyway, in both movies and TV. So just back and relax, folks, they’re bound to make something you might like.

They never should have cancelled enterprise. Not impressed with discovery tv nor with beyond movie. Pine is the new Kirk so no pine no Kirk. I like the comment above about making a pike movie. There’s a three year gap in 2009 trek in which to place it while Kirk is at the Academy. There wouldn’t be a scotty as we met him in that movie but Spock was at the Academy at the time as were McCoy and uhura

Keep Chris Pine if he is not in star trek movie and the rest of the cast, I’m not paying to go see it.

Well played, Gordy. Welcome.

Agreed. We’re coming to that point.

Paramount executives and the actors negotiated the deal for Star Trek 4 in a obstensively mutually agreed upon time frame. They were all good with it then, so live with it now. To engage in this endless and pointless bickering about money serves absolutely no purpose.

If Paramount chooses to back out on the deal, then the decision to end the production of Star Trek sequels is the only logical reality. Simply put, gotta strike when the iron is hot ( spend it to make it). With respect to the numerous options mentioned with respect to script rewrites and actor changes, you can’t reinvent the wheel ladies and gentlemen.

Like it or not , barring death, the actors to portray these roles have been branded, and no fan of the franchise is going to accept a recasting of these characters, or to produces a cinematically inferior sequel (Star Trek 4: The Search for More Money).

I gotta believe Gene Roddenberry would have chosen to end the franchise rather than having to make the fundamental choice between compromising the integrity of the product and his vision of the future and not to be held hostage to a profit margin.

Rather I think his answer to this impasse would be to challenge the Paramount executives and actors to move forward with production as agreed and to understand that they alone have the unique opportunity to create a piece of cinematography that will inspire and challenge the intellect of future generations to get back to the job of reaching for the stars. Sometimes it’s not just about the money.

No more reboots. That’s it

I like Helmsworth, but the Kirk Daddy plot is uninteresting. Let’s have a better plot, a story with more depth and one that allows for all of the characters to be involved. Also, does Paramount give a damn what we think on this obscure Trek website. I think not.

The entire cast – timeline – everything always was 2nd rate because their was never any true meaning and meaning to the film story or characters. Write a story that a person could relate
to in someway before worrying about 2 lead characters. IF it’s another dismal story then why
even begin to bother at all? Recast and start new…Paramount – Wake Up already 🙄

Option 9 with a complete reboot, a total recast of the regulars, and a lower budget makes the most sense. I’d miss seeing Urban as McCoy, but that’s it.

Fire Abrams tell Hemsworth, thank you very much. Hire Vic Mignogna as Pines father and have him direct also.

ditch pine add chris pratt 9he’s free now with guardians crashing)… you’d still have a chris and he’s more masculine than pine… he auditioned for it too… i’d be surprised though if the Tarantino project is going forward that pine wouldn’t want to play kirk in that… im assuming paramount will make a two pic deal with him for this and Tarantino… but who knows… i love the rest of the cast… would hate to see it all blow up over his agents playing games… and if you look at his mojo history… seriously he does not have a good record… he’s supporting in wonder woman… other than that he’s got squat… he can’t open a movie and never will outside of trek and wonder woman carrying the load

if pine is greedy, sack him.


And if Paramount’s the greedy entity?


Actors of the world, unite!

You have nothing to lose but your golden handcuffs!

The correct amswer:

Enjoy the new season of Doctor Who, enjoy ST: Disco II, and supplement with Marvel Movies and DC TV shows till the Kirks pull their heads out of their butts, and put Tarantino in as relief pitcher, telescoping production of Clarkson’s film filming what they can.

I vote for #5-B. Pay Hemsworth. Cut Pine. Hemsworth plays both father and son. From the beginning I wish they’d kept Hemsworth to play Kirk. If one of them gets cut, I’d rather see what Hemsworth could do with the role.

Paramount needs a box office draw with Trek, and Hemsworth is the biggest name they’ve likely had associated with the franchise. The casual audiences who simply go to see an exciting Summer tentpole film, likely won’t even remember Chris Pine was Kirk, they look similar enough. So long as Hemsworth plays older George Kirk, then makeup does the rest to distinguish the two from each other, and lend credibility to Hemsworth as Kirk.

Quite frankly, I’m really not so sure who would really care.

Curious Cadet,

I’m with you on this. In fact, if Paramount is so in love with the Marvel movie model, I’d remind them that at one time they licensed the comics to Marvel.

Why not pursue Marvel/Disney as a Trek financing partner? Put it back in the MCU?

It’s not the worst idea ever. I can see Hemsworth playing Kirk as more emotionally and mentally mature, closer to how Shatner played him in TOS (without the Shatnerian mannerisms, of course), as opposed to Pine’s portrayal, which lacks a certain gravitas, whether you enjoy it or not. Though that would be heavily dependent upon the script, and there’s no particular reason to think that Kirk will be written that way. There’s no way to know whether Hemsworth as Kirk would be more or less appealing than Pine, without seeing him do it.

I’m not really sure why they need to do a father and son movie. Kirk resolved his daddy issues in Beyond. There was even a line that pretty much points to that when he is fighting Krall in the ventilation system of the starbase. “Better to die saving lives, than to live with taking them. That’s what I was born into.”

Trellium G

My guess would be because Paramount has already paid Payne & McKay for the daddy script.

There are four options not listed above:

(10) Replace the producer. JJ Abrams is just awful, and who knows how much money his fee is siphoning out of the budget.

(11) Start over and replace the producer. Same rationale as (10) without any of the baggage of JJ Trek.

(12) Start over, replace the producer and get JJ Abrams a comfortable job in another industry. Same rationale as (11) with the added benefit that JJ Abrams stops ruining movies. Imagine a world where JJ Abrams has nothing to do with Star Trek or Star Wars. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

(13) Sell Star Trek franchise to a party who understands what it is, what it was meant to be, and its true potential. Stop milking a 50-year-old cow that you bought for chump change from a financially desperate creative genius, sell it for a massive profit, and spend a tiny fraction of that money on writers to create a new movie franchise. Studio executives today might be wondering about the meaning of a word in that last sentence — create. It means making something of your own as opposed to copying something made by someone else.

Option 10: rewrite the script so it involves only part of the crew. There’s no need for a massive ensemble every outing, if the core of the story is Kirk, pay Pine and cut back or remove Scotty, Spock, Uhura, Sulu and Bones. Next outing, have the crew encounter and resolve a conflict where Kirk is somehow sidelined.

This series of Trek was fun but never fitted any timeline. It was too flashy(in so many ways) and too futuristic for its ‘time’
Time is up let it go and reboot in the proper timeline, after all timelines can be changed back as well!!!

Bring on the origional Captain Kirk; William Shatner! Give him a part similar to Leonard Nimoy in the first two movies!

William Shatner! Think about it!