While it has been reported that Paramount has shelved plans for Star Trek 4, there is an indication the studio is still looking to bring more Star Trek to the big screen. In addition, talk of a re-merger of CBS and Viacom (Paramount’s parent company) is heating up yet again.
Paramount wants to breathe life into Trek, prez talks up Tarantino project
In a feature in the New York Times about Paramount Pictures efforts to turn around the studio, the subject of Star Trek came up as part of the studio’s future plans. The following excerpt from the article recounts the discussion with Paramount motion-picture group president Wyck Godfrey, who joined the studio in 2017:
Mr. Godfrey’s coming film lineup emphasizes big-budget, global-audience movies, known in Hollywood as tentpoles. A long-gestating “Top Gun” sequel is finally happening. Mr. Godfrey is working to breathe life into the tired “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” “Terminator,” “Star Trek” and “G.I. Joe” franchises. Paramount also has high hopes for films tied to Viacom’s cable networks, including “Dora the Explorer,” a live-action, big-screen adaptation of the Nickelodeon cartoon.
Whatever its box-office viability, though, such fare doesn’t quite scream “stand the test of time.”
But Mr. Godfrey insisted otherwise. Imagine, for instance, Paramount giving “Star Trek” to Quentin Tarantino. “Suddenly people’s eyes light up,” Mr. Godfrey said. “Yours just did.”
Last year Paramount CEO Jim Gianopulos confirmed the studio had two Trek films in development: Star Trek 4 (the follow-up to 2016’s Star Trek Beyond), and another Star Trek film based on a pitch from Oscar-winning writer/director Quentin Tarantino, which was handed off to screenwriter Mark L. Smith. The Tarantino concept has been reported to be something separate, but could also involve the cast from the three Kelvin Star Trek films. McCoy actor Karl Urban described the pitch as “bananas.”
Expectations were that the Star Trek 4 project would go first, with production starting this year while Tarantino works on his latest film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, due out this summer. If the salary standoff with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth has put the Star Trek 4 project back on the shelf, it is possible Paramount may put the Tarantino project forward as the next Trek feature, although it is unclear if or how negotiations with Chris Pine may affect it.
Paramount moving ahead on its core franchises with or without Bad Robot
However, based on the above comment and previous reports, Paramount, which has produced thirteen Star Trek features over the last four decades, is still looking to keep the franchise going on the big screen. Just as noted by Viacom CEO Bob Bakish in 2017, Star Trek is one of the core tentpole franchises for the studio, along with Transformers and Mission: Impossible.
A parallel for the future of Trek may be the Transformers franchise, which had seen declining results and following the 2017 release of The Last Knight, follow-ups to that film were put on hold and there was talk of a reboot of the franchise. However, with the success of the new Bumblebee spin-off, the studio is already looking forward to multiple Transformers releases, including a Bumblebee 2.
One area that will also have to be worked out is the involvement of producer J.J. Abrams and his production company Bad Robot. Currently, Bad Robot is handling the development of Trek films, but Abrams’ deal with Paramount ends in 2020. Abrams is seeking a new mega-deal combining TV, film, and theme park work under one banner, and Paramount is not part of the competition to land Bad Robot for the next decade.
However, this should not be seen as having a major impact. It’s possible Bad Robot could work with Paramount even after a new mega-deal is done – as it has done with Disney on two Star Wars films – or the studio can continue with new producers. For example, the studio has just locked down Tom Cruise and director Chris McQuarrie for two more Mission: Impossible features. Bad Robot and Abrams have produced the latest four M:I movies and brought in McQuarrie for the last two films in the franchise.
Industry expects CBS and Viacom to re-merge in 2019
In other Star Trek-related business news, the buzz around Viacom and CBS re-merging has returned. 2018 talks regarding rejoining the media companies – which split in 2005 – became acrimonious and ended up in court. A settlement last September appeared to put a merger back on hold until 2020, however that agreement was only for controlling Shareholder Shari Redstone not to push for the merger, leaving the boards of the companies free to seek a deal on their own, which seems to be a strong possibility.
According to Bloomberg, the CBS board is set to meet one week from today (January 31st) “to discuss both the hunt for a permanent chief executive officer and the possibility of a merger with Viacom,” with Viacom CEO Robert Bakish considered a leading contender to run a potential combined CBS/Viacom. The New York Post has also reported that the hiring of a new CEO and the merger of Viacom and CBS are linked, with the announcement of a deal and new chief executive possibly being announced by March of April. Industry analysts are also again talking up a merger based on reporting from Barrons, TheWrap, and Deadline.
Of course, we have been down this road before, but with big changes on the CBS board, and with the main merger opponent, Les Moonves, no longer CEO, a merger is now looking more likely than ever.
A Star Trek cinematic universe?
If CBS and Viacom re-merge this year, it will once again bring all of Star Trek back under one corporate umbrella. With CBS making a big push into Star Trek for TV, there are many possibilities for creating synergies with the film franchise. And with J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot exiting Paramount, it is possible that Alex Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout Productions could end up with the whole franchise under its roof in the coming years.
TrekMovie talked to Kurtzman and his Secret Hideout partner Heather Kadin about the possibility of a merger at last week’s season two premiere of Star Trek: Discovery. Kurtzman said he has not had any conversations about taking on the Trek films, but he had some opinions on the future of the franchise on the big screen, saying he would “approach it more from the point of view of what kinds of stories can’t we tell on television that are better for the screen.” Kadin also noted that it would be ideal “to have everything play in the same universe.”
Keep up with all the news on Star Trek 4 and upcoming Trek films at TrekMovie.com.
I’d very much be up for one standalone QT Trek film. It couldn’t hurt anything at this point in the Trek film realm and could be really interesting to see what he comes up with. I say go for it.
I concur. Nothing to lose at this point with the KT films, and unlike the well-intentioned-but-slight “Beyond,” a QT Trek would certainly be impossible to ignore, if only for all the wrong reasons.
That does seem to be the best choice on a list of plausible outcomes that is altogether less than exciting.
Agreed, it might also get many people who are not necessarily Trekkies on board just by the curiosity factor.
A Quentin Tarantino reboot would be a great time to recast and reimagine the movies.
It’s too soon to already re-cast the Enterprise crew. I don’t want anyone else playing Bones but Karl.
Kelvin Cast or don’t do Enterprise.
I’m up for more movies obviously and curious about the Tarantino movie but I don’t think its a good idea to reboot the TOS cast this soon. They should wait at least a few years or fans might reject them since the Kelvin cast is still in most people’s minds. But same time if the script is dealing the TOS cast they may just roll the dice.
Its just nice we are hearing SOMETHING about the movie side again.
Agreed. CBS are already rebooting the TOS cast on TV so if the merger goes ahead and Trek is all going to be under one roof it wouldn’t make sense to have multiple actors playing the same roles. If they were strategic they could hold off casting somebody to play Kirk on the TV shows and then in a few years promote the likes of Ethan Peck and whoever else they’ve brought in from TOS to the films alongside a bankable movie stars to play the likes of the good captain and possibly even Gary Mitchell. The timeline would then be about right for producing features that serve as lost episodes during the 5 year mission perhaps even starting with Kirk taking command of the Enterprise and the subsequent first adventure.
Yes I’m trying to imagine how TOS fans would react knowing there will be a FOURTH Spock now lol. For the record I have NO issues with this. To me a role is a role. But Trek fans are fickle and while I think Peck can win over some of the naysaers he’s still going to get a lot of push back, mark my words. It took years for some people to accept Quinto in the role and I think by the time Beyond rolled around most have accepted him but another new guy this soon? That’s asking for trouble IMO, not to say the rest of the cast.
On the other hand, if you are a fan of the fan-productions, you have learned to to accept Cawley,Gross and Mignogna in the role of Kirk. And those are the hardcore fans.
@odradek I enjoy the fan films, I’ve mostly only watched New Voyages/Phase 2 but I plan on watching the Mignola series too. I’d go so far as to say that those productions helped me accept seeing other actors in these iconic roles and made me more receptive to the Abrams movies and what they’re now doing on Discovery. Im not really clamouring for more TOS era films, I’d love to see another ship/crew given the spotligh of I’m honest. It’s just that I think the studio will want to use these characters again in big budget movies and that’s why I suggest promoting actors from the TV side and rounding out the cast with Hollywood A listers. Obviously this would be dependent on the merger going through but reports are suggesting this is likely.
I see a Trek future with many reboots and reimaginings. Eventually the trek universe will turn into a convoluted mess like the Transformers brand.
All of this is assuming, of course, that QT’s idea *necessarily* involves using the TOS crew. The film could give Paramount a chance to reboot Trek with a new crew. With the right budget, the project would attract enough interest to give the franchise a soft redo without the headaches of recasting iconic characters yet again.
Yes this is what I’m personally hoping Holden. If he does make a new film from scratch that doesn’t involve the Kelvin crew then just make one with a different crew entirely. NO connections to any others, its own thing. Not someone who is a cousin of Uhura’s or Janeway’s nephew. Just something new away from everything we seen before and start completely fresh. I don’t want to hear how his Spock isn’t the right height or that Kirk didn’t curse that much or that the Enterprise looks too modern. Ugh.
And then Tarantino can just do what he wants. He can interpret Star Trek however he wants. Once he uses familiar characters then he automatically has expectations he has to meet no matter how many times people pretend he would have a clean slate. He wouldn’t and they know it. The Kelvin films made that clear. I’m sure Orci and Abrams can talk about that forever.
So don’t do TOS ,move on to something new and different. Go to the 25th cent
why? Just because you want them to? Yeah, they’ll listen to you, just write QT a letter.
What about the whole untouched Enterprise-C missions. I think there’s so much room to explore there.
E-B. Better more interesting time frame.
Captain Garrett is much more interesting than Captain Harriman though.
Garrett is a hero, and we haven’t seen any flaws there at all.
But Harriman has the potential to be the most interesting character in trek history, somebody who actually has to spend his life living down having gotten Kirk killed. NO quick&easy redemption like with DSC’s lead.
My main takeaway from GEN was (and still is) that an E-B limited series could really go deeper into the apparent political paranoia evinced in SFS and TUC, while also eventually redeeming Harriman and the E-B.
I don’t think Burnham had an easy redemption, she is not first officer of the Discovery and no longer on fast track for a Captaincy in Starfleet. Restored in rank to commander but only as science officer, but unlike Spock not second in command it is a demotion.
Spock isn’t Second in Command either. Obviously, Number One is second in command aboard the Enterprise.
@skyjedi Indeed, you could argue that Lieutenant Connelly’s obnoxious behavour towards Burnham in the season 2 premiere was an indication of how negatively she is still perceived outside of the Discovery crew. That being said @ksmart makes valid points about Harriman. You could even keep Alan Ruck in the role and pick up the story in real-time with a Captain that’s perhaps had a mediocre career with a reputation still tarnished by his role in Kirk’s death.
I think Burnham’s redemption — such as it is — undoes any interest of the premise. And the only way to show all those hard feelings among her peers would be to have most ‘fleet folks she meets react to her the way they did to that Betazed in TIN MAN, with genuine and sustained anger. But I suppose they are treating character the way BermanCo treated ‘warpdrive is bad for space’ — go to the well a couple of times, then pretend it didn’t happen … in Burnham’s case it is more like wish it away with the magic official disclaimer.
While that is true she still had a quick redemption that seemed to mostly happen off screen. She went from pariah to accepted by the crew of Discovery in a blink of an eye.
I love the idea of doing an Enterprise B or C series/movie. The only draw back for me is they would of course change the look entirely from what was seen before.
Not a problem for most I guess, but to me I dig the twok/tng look of trek and would most likely loath the change up.
The B would be interesting.
I support any idea that brings the Monster Maroons back:)
@Locutus — Harriman doesn’t have to be the Captain of the Enterprise B for the purposes of a series. Who knows, he may have even resigned, or been reassigned after losing James T. Kirk on his maiden mission.
That said, Harriman is a character, and while I didn’t care for the actor, Harriman could also be improved considerably after being recast for the series. Then again, I don’t care for that name. Garrett is a much stronger name. But that’s no reason to move to that era. Just give the E-B a new captain.
The only remaining caveat is that the Enterprise “B” sounds like second best. But once you make a few changes to series, the characters, the cast, the ship (I don’t want to watch an ugly Excelsior-class ship), etc. that may not really matter much at all.
I would love to see the C in action again
Hope it has lots of nudity and blood.
Look, that’s exactly the kind of expectation that gives me the creeps about a QT movie. There may be plenty of reasons to include some uncensored bloodshed or even nudity in movies, when it contributes to the story, but public demand shouldn’t be one of those reasons.
It is one thing to accept those elements when it fits the tale but cooking up a story just to include “lots of” tits and gore isn’t a good idea… Turning Trek into low-fi pulp fiction for no other reason but to serve the zeitgeist, thanks, but no thanks. Not on Trek.
Paramount will make it if they think it will make money, unlike fans they see Trek solely as a way to make money and don’t have any high minded ideals about it. Remember when they wanted Kelvin 3 to be Guardians of the Galaxy, and less Star Trekky.
I actually think he wouldn’t use too much, he is a fan.
Quentin Tarantino directed a two-part CSI episode. It had no nudity, no F-words and no more blood than any other episode of CSI.
To be fair, QT doesn’t really utilize nudity much. That’s not his style.
Language and violence, on the other hand . . . .
That said, I don’t buy the idea that his Trek idea necessarily goes down that road. I think he understands well how brands work.
I don’t believe that they would recast. Deals for this film would be totally separate from the Chris Hemsworth version of ST 4.
Also, I believe that some of the cast from Abrams films had indicated they would be involved w/Tarantino’s film.
NO! No more reboots or re-imaginings!
If anything, it’s time to begin bringing all the different threads back together.
I don’t mind a Tarantino Trek within the established Kelvin or Prime/DSC timelines but no more fragmentation of the franchise, that would be disastrous.
Why do films need to be remade?! Do a friggin sequel!
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Bad Robot is out, but still in.
Even worse, Kurtzman could wind up producing the lot — movies and TV.
The QT Trek movie would only be based on a story idea by QT and not involve his talents in any other way.
And… just to block any attempts that one might have of circumventing the poor management of Trek by seeing another Paramount movie — the studio promises more lame, unsatisfying tent-pole movies all around.
This is what they call “breathing life” into Trek? I feel like I’ve just experienced the life-sucking machine from THE PRINCESS BRIDE on its lowest setting.
Always the ray of sunshine….
It’s the Eternal (ray of) Sunshine of the Spotless CygMind. But I agree, there’s not a lot to be really thrilled over, especially if QT limits his input.
Good Cygnus, but the precise expression is “Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil”
Interesting. The version I quoted is the more commonly referenced one coined by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr. I suppose your version is more grammatically correct. The difference is between The more it changes, the more it is the same thing (Karr, 1849), and The more it changes, the more it is the same. Which one to use, I guess, depends on whether you want to be poetic at the expense of grammatical precision. There’s also an implied historical value that is conveyed by a famous quote.
“…the studio promises more lame, unsatisfying tent-pole movies all around.”
Bumblebee was a great effort at breathing life into that particular franchise. It wasn’t a financial rebirth, but it definitely was a creative one. The same could happen for GI Joe, Terminator or Star Trek.
But Bumblebee did the exact opposite of “giving the franchise to QT”… it went back to the roots, cut back on the budget and presented a charming, authentic 80s tale for all ages that undid the creative bankrupcy of the previous outings…
There HAD BEEN plans about giving Bumblebee the R-Rated treatment. Now THAT would have been a disaster. It might turn out viable for Trek though, even if I still believe QT is the wrong person to handle the delicate matter of finding the right balance between traditional Trek and R-Rated gallore…
Wasn’t James Cameron returning to the Terminator franchise? Or is that old news? With him still thinking he’s going to make three more Avatar movies who can say what he’s doing.
Well, you’ve convinced me to give BUMBLEBEE a viewing.
Seriously, man… why are you here? I never see you post anything positive about Star Trek–it’s all just complaining and negativity.
Now, now… let’s not start with that. That you do not see a thing does not mean that it does not exist.
BLESS YOU, sir.
Agreed. I don’t see things getting any better at this rate.
I would almost guarantee William Shatner would be in a Tarentino imagined “Trek” movie. We can only hope …
Why? Hardly a guarantee, and I for one want Shatner nowhere near Trek ever again. His time is long past.
Good for you.
How is that good for me? Do elaborate!
Guarantee and what would be an over 90 Shatner when principle photography on a QT project may (and that’s a very big may at this point) are not words that should be used in the same sentence.
As much as i wish they did more with the TOS cast before they were put out to pasture that ship sailed in 1991. I wish Generations never happened. Second Star to the right is the perfect sendoff.
Glad to hear some news on the Tarantino Trek project. There hadn’t been any news on that front for a while, and I’ve been wondering if the decision to shelve Star Trek IV had any effect on it.
my personal opinion is that when Pine and maybe some others in the cast heard that Quentin Motherf**king Tarantino was working on Trek ‘5’ not just story but wanting to direct, he and the others figured that if ST4 bombed (which was looking likely as Beyond was so disappointing and Trek Thor didn’t sound much better therefore a repeat of Insurrection/Nemesis)then its likely QTs movie would be dead (there goes the chance to star in a Tarantino movie – an actors dream. also a QT Trek movie would totally revitalize the Kelvin movie franchise after Beyond)..so he started asking for loads of $ in the hope the silly Kirk meets his pops movie would crumble and the tv director would move on to other tv stuff so Paramount would then move onto QTs movie after he done with Manson..and guess what.. its looking likely that’s the case :)
As I understand it, Pine is only asking Paramount pay him the salary they originally agreed upon before the release of Beyond in 2016.
He can also ask for more money because he is a big star now because of Wonder Woman and will be in its sequel. Why would he take a substantial cut, any agent that ever did that would get fired.
@skyjedi — WW did not make him a big star. He’s still a supporting player who in no way carries any part of that movie.
That’s some serious scheming, but I think you’re giving Pine too much credit.
maybe the kirk character has rubbed off on him and hes Kobayashi Maru’d us out of another Trek bomb
Your scenario would imply that Pine (and others) would work for less to be in a Tarantino-directed Trek. I don’t see either situation as likely.
It’s a huge leap to call this article news. The QT project is no closer to reality then the Bad Robot project.
Trek fans are in for a hell of a ride the next couple of years! :D
Some Trek fans hate anything that’s different. QT will become their new Devil. 😈
QT is the devil :-)
No seriously, some of us just don’t like his stylistic approach to every genre he touches. His movies fall apart as soon as the Tarantnio shootout massacres kick in. Do I want that on Trek?
I’d very much appreciate some well-selected R-Rated material on Trek but QT is a bit too much over the top for my taste… Cautiously pessemistic :-(
bring in QT and have in go 80s movie trek on the JJ crew.
What is the NYT talking about? The Trek franchise isn’t tired–it’s booming at the moment!
The movie franchise, is what they’re talking about.
If the Tarantino project was to involve the TNG cast, that would be interesting proposition with the Picard series coming out before it and having some kind of connection.
I don’t see that happening UNLESS there is a merger of some kind. He could reboot TNG with a new cast I guess but I don’t see the TV side wanting Patrick Stewart in that movie and just stay exclusive to the show.
The on again off again merger is back on again. We shall see. In an ideal world, I would have liked to have seen the motion picture – TV Star Trek universe unified back in 2018, that may have cleared to way for Zachery to be on Discovery. But with all the business uncertainty, I am happy Kurtzman didn’t just wait around hoping for a deal to get done and who even knows if Quinto would have wanted to play Spock on TV. Soon we will see if Ethan Peck can pull off what he reasonably managed to do back in 2009.
Quinto is too old to play disco Spock who is a younger Spock. Honestly, the new actor actually looks more convincing as a younger version of Quinto Spock than Nimoy’s. If they remove the beard and give him st09’s costume, they could pass for brothers.
The casting ultimately is not bad; the 3 Spock have that subtle something in common. Nimoy is Nimoy, but Zach and Ethan have incredible expressive dark eyes that really do the trick even if they don’t say a word.
Agreed. Quinto was never going to be on this show for a lot of reasons, the biggest he is too old and it would’ve been confusing to some people to see one actor (technically) play two different roles as they clearly have different backgrounds. And he probably would want too much money lol. You get a newbie in the role you can low ball it.
“Kadin also noted that it would be ideal “to have everything play in the same universe.”..”
Yeah, discovery would’ve been better if placed in the timeline of the newest movies you are trying to imitate, instead of you all trying to retcon tos past.
After all, it’s the money of the new generation of trek fans who became fans thank to those movies that you are trying to get.
Just because you guys chose to put yourselves in a tos prequel prison (or were forced to), and are painting yourselves into a corner from here to the eternity, it doesn’t mean feature movies must do the same thing, and give up about a different trek reality that has more freedom and potential. Let other writers do something different.
Retconning TOS was LONG overdue and I may be the only one who feels this way, but i’m so glad they did it. I thought they were going to do it for the Abrams movies.
Happy for you, Afterburn :) I, for one, prefer the kelvin timeline that is changing things, and adding twists and different interpretations to canon, without expecting me to accept retcons 50 years late that need to reconcile their contrivances with decades of canon. I prefer a new trek and more honest reboot that is a separate thing.
Discovery wants to be like the movies (and get their audience) anyway, so why not be coherent?
The show had so much potential but it feels like the creative team doomed themselves. They don’t even trust their new original characters enough, they keep relying on JJ movies for the style, and the tos characters for nostalgia.
Why not both?
They DID retcon for the Abrams movies.
ML31, not really. Alternate reality, different rules.
Though, irony is that Kelvin Spock’s backstory will be the one that aligns with Spock prime’s original canon, the EU, tas and the opinions of the original tptb, the most.
I agree and disagree with this. I think they should’ve put it in another universe but not the Kelvin one. That universe is too different now and then it creates a bigger issue of Burnham being Spock’s sister. With TOS, we never saw his actual childhood so you can (kind of) fool yourself there was a sister there. But in the KU, we seen Spock’s childhood and its no way they could fool people Michael was just there in all those movies and never seen or mentioned, especially after his mother was killed off and Spock’s entire life changed in the process.
I still don’t like Discovery is a prequel but it would’ve worked out better if it was a complete reboot away from KU and PU IMO.
Tiger, I agree. The reboot already has a backstory that confirms and expands on what we knew about Spock before disco retconned it (DC fontana must hate discovery its guts. She already hated they gave Spock a brother)
Obviously, it’s too late for Discovery to be in that timeline.
But consider the genesis of the show, if discovery was in the kelvin timeline then Michael wouldn’t necessarily need to be his sister. The show could’ve been a sequel of the movies or a parallel spin off to the movies. Spock&Co would have had cameos without it having to be contrived. Or Sarek could’ve been her grandpa ;)
Yeah I guess they could’ve just found a different role for Micheal in that dynamic. I still don’t know why she couldn’t just be Sarek’s mentor but we are getting waaaaaaay off topic now lol.
It has been said often but I’m saying it again. Looking at the final product Discovery should have been either a reboot or set in the KU or set post Nemesis. All of those would have fit the style they made for themselves. If they wanted to be in the prime U and be a direct prequel, they should have made things look like they fit that world better. (And no, *sigh* I do not mean copy the ’60’s plans, I mean make it look modern but still evoke the feel of what was done before) Instead they decided to bring nuclear weapons to the US Civil War.
ML31, I came to the conclusion they made it a prequel only to make the lead Spock’s sister, thus try to give their original characters a link to the iconic ones and possibly use those characters as a jolly. Other than that, I don’t understand or see any reason why the show couldn’t be a sequel.
I’m still a bit disappointed that the title and name of the ship also made me picture a series about a highly exploratory/scientific ship that would show many different, new, worlds and species. In short, discover new things. I guess they still do that and yet..
No, I think the real reason was so they could set it at a time when a) the galaxy was less explored, b) technology was more primitive, and c) when Klingons were adversaries.
A universe of super technology that can do anything– where the Romulans, Klingons, and even Cardassians are allies– and when they’ve explored every quadrant, is a lot less interesting.
“technology was more primitive”
This made me laugh! :)
Yes because spore drives where you can hop to any part of the galaxy and even universes are so primitive tech. It’s like Enterprise all over again.
Its the very definition of super technology lol.
If you think that’s funny, you need a head check.
Replicators, borg nanotech, quantum torpedoes, phasing cloaks. One of the early mistakes TNG made was having Pulaski erase someone’s memory. They had to constantly make excuses why it wouldn’t work the rest of the series.
Lesser tech is a big reason they set it in this time period, i’m convinced. The spore drive was a way of giving the ship a unique experimental feature, and I would also bet the original plan was to explore the moral aspect of torturing a creature to make it work a lot more prominently than we ended up getting.
@Afterburn — I originally appreciated that they set this series in this period because it limits the technology they have access to. That said, I’m not sure that’s why they chose it. Nevertheless, there’s a lot to be said for that, just as ENT limited their ability to use the transporter, etc. Unfortunately, even as they try to limit their use of technology, they don’t seem to be able to stop themselves from doing it. ENT started using the transporter far too regularly, and despite TNG putting the brakes on Warp speeds (with an ecological message no less), never really changed anything.
We’ll see if DISC can stick to their time period. I’m already wondering about the Spore drive, which seems to have gotten a new lease on life, after being shelved by ethical considerations. As long as they end the series with this drive being permanently disabled, then it all fits with canon. Think about this, TOS never explained why after the Enterprise successfully used a Romulan cloaking device, it was never used again, and no reason for that was given during TOS. The Spore Drive, is really no different. However, if they continue to use it, it really detracts from setting the series in this period to limit the use of technology. Otherwise, so far they’ve done pretty well — so we’ll see what they do this season. Hopefully they keep a lid on the “magical’ technology to get them out of sticky situations.
You think space travel and warp drive are primitive?
Whatever story Tarantino wants to tell, use Anson Mount’s Pike, Peck’s Spock, and the DSC univere’s 1701 Enterprise.
Boom. Hot film with a talented cast and a connection to a hit show, helps both.
Hit show … most people don’t even seem to know DSC exists.
After seeing claims about how popular the show is in recent weeks, I started casually asking at work — not just coworkers, but customers as well — about it, and except for one couple’s teenage kid (who I guess had seen it at somebody else’s house), I got a bunch of blank stares and a few ‘no’s. Literally no adult recognized DISCOVERY as the name of a new TREK show. Small sampling, maybe 30 or 35 people, but we’re just a couple miles outside a major metropolitan city, so you’d figure at least a few folks would have said yes to watching it or knowing of it (and at least 6 or 8 of those people were looking through the sf book section, so they were the target market.)
I can give you direct anecdotal evidence to the contrary, as in my 40-person office nearly half are regular viewers. Seems like an odd way to spend your time though, polling strangers just to prove DSC fans wrong.
Yeah, but kmart is not a CBS employee.
@ Thomas: I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that Afterburn works for CBS?
I’m not, but I do know people there.
Well, it certainly doesn’t show… ;-)
It helps that I work in entertainment. Over the past 20 years have worked at major companies, and currently work at a small one. It helps mostly that my office 95% geeks (the owner’s office is full of Trek DVDs). Everyone reads comics, watches genre movies, and is into sci-fi. The day Stan Lee died was practically a day of mourning. I’m not even the biggest Trekkie in the office.
As for people I know at CBS, none of them are friends, they are professional colleagues. I’m pretty sure some of them aren’t even there anymore. I’m also personally friends with an editor who works on Trek novels (or used to).
More broadly think the deflection “well you really like something, you must work there” is frankly ludicrous on its face. I recall during the Axanar debacle they’d accuse anyone who didn’t support them of working for CBS. Just stoopid.
The remaining Axatards probably still do that. Peters is still trying to raise money, or trying to prove that there are more suckers born every minute.
Bring a pole dancer doesn’t give you a voice.
Who are you talking to … and more importantly, what are you trying to say?
Of the 50 plus people in my office I’m the only one watching. There is no one to discuss this show with at work and I’m surrounded by people who watch a lot of programming on a number of different platforms. The office chatter that was there for The Handmaid’s Tale, Haunting of Hill House and Stranger Things just isn’t there for this show.
Absolutely the same case in my 50 plus office. I’m the only one watching. In fact, I had a coworker ask me about it the other day – when I told him it was on its own streaming channel, he said “Oh F that, I’m not buying another channel just for that.” Nobody I know is interested in it, except for one friend who steals it online.
Literally everyone I know is aware of the show at the very least (I admit not everyone watches it, and even in my office less than half of those who do subscribe to CBSAA– I share my login with a few of them shhhhhh).
You need coolor friends and associates. I run with geeks!
Another where I am the one and only person in my workplace (not as large as yours, there are perhaps 20 some odd people on my floor) who has publicly admitted to watching the show. There are only a few other Trek-like nerds and none of them even knew Discovery was happening back when they announced it. When I asked they they would go in with me to share an account I got no takers. They have their Netflix, Hulu and Amazon or some combination of the three and none are interested in CBS. There are some who are interested in both the DC and Disney ones. Which they HAVE heard about. I asked if they would share this year but they cited two things on why not. First, lack of other content on CBS and next, they heard the show was not very good anyway. Part of that was admittedly me telling them that but I tried to make the argument that the next season looked promising and that it seems they may have addressed many of their mistakes. But still, no takers. This is the only place I can talk to people who have seen the show. Mrs ML31 never watched Trek to begin with and my kid is too busy with things other than TV shows.
It has always been this way in my XP. I’m the only one I know who watched Voyager or Deep Space Nine.
Discussing one’s interests in casual conversation is pretty much what casual conversation often consists of, isn’t it? It’s not like I’m ticking off boxes on a clipboard. And at least one supervisor at work is a dedicated TOS fan who adores FIREFLY — and though she watched the DSC pilot, she hasn’t seen an ep since (she watched VOYAGER too, so I guess it is like JTK said — there’s no accounting for taste.)
Discovery was reported by internet ratings as the most-streamed show of 2018, often beating Game of Thrones. And it has massive television ratings here on the Space channel. Definitely a huge success. Almost everyone I know has binged watched it already.
ding ding ding! I’ll take stats and ratings over a few anectodal stories any day. My dad used to tell me how he was the only one at his university who watched TOS in school in the 60s, and the only one watching reruns at his university in the early 70s.
And when I was in high school in the early 90s I was the only kid i knew watching TNG, despite it being one of the highest rated shows of the era (with similar ratings to primetime hits).
I’ve heard some people claim this (most streamed show of 2018) yet I’ve seen nothing to confirm it. I do not know what the numbers in Canada are but it stands to reason they would be higher there due to the ease of access. All I have found was that CBSAA’s subscriber numbers were just over half of what they were hoping for. Beyond that, it’s mostly speculation and, yes, anecdotes.
Once again, just because you’re the only one you know doesn’t mean there aren’t tens of millions of people watching it. And yet again you call into question statistics just because of your own personal experience.
Growing up in South Carolina I didn’t know ANYONE watching TNG, but it was a big hit. Living in NYC I know many people watching DSC.
If you don’t trust what’s said about it in the trades, feel free to live in your own fantasy world where the show is a failure.
A. I am aware of the limitations of anecdotal evidence. Conversely, you claiming it is popular because you know a lot of people using it doesn’t support your case either.
B. I did not call into question the comment because of my personal experience. I called into question the comment because no one has presented any evidence to back it up. Someone on the internet claiming something is so because they said so does not make it so.
a) that is not why I say it’s popular, that is me refuting some silly anectodes with my own. Do keep up.
b) the producers, the network, and various independent analytics groups are saying it’s a hit, and I see no reason to not believe it.
ML31, in fact Justin Credible is probably talking about that one site claiming this fact but they didn’t really measure how many people watched the show, not to mention their analysis was limited to only some countries. It was misleading. If you check the more reliable sites that post annual global ratings, the most streamed TV shows of 2018 are other things…
Same here. Where I live you can watch it on Netflix but I have no one to talk about the show among my friends, not even those who are trek fans.
I think the show is popular all things considered, but trek in general is something that struggles to be much popular among a general audience that aren’t trek fans already. Outside the USA especially, it’s hard.
The fact it isn’t about the characters and reality you see in the most recent movies is also a disadvantage because the newest, young, generation of trek fans who became fans thank to JJ’s trilogy may feel like they don’t have a reason to pay to watch discovery and other shows that aren’t sequels or spin offs of the movies.
Wow, it’s almost as if anecdotal evidence is evidence of nothing! Did I say it was game of thrones? Jeez people, chill the heck out, you’re scrutinizing a word for no reason, rather than the point I was making. Talk about nattering nabobs!
This is entirely context-dependent on the people you ask. In some cases, like Afterburn pointed out, the profession you’re in will self-select for certain demographics — I can certainly see a higher percentage of NASA’s [furloughed] staff following Disco than maybe a teamsters union. I think as a proportion of viewers, Disco isn’t seen by many people, especially given all the content available for consumption these days. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a financial success, since it’s obvious it is — although maybe not a runaway success. It’s no Stranger Things or GOT, and may not be for several seasons, if ever. But there’s half a dozen Trek projects in development and probably many more seasons of Disco in the pipeline, so there’s plenty of time and opportunity for Trek to catch fire again.
I think it’s a hit show. Is it top 5? Top 10? No. But is well-watched, and successful? Yes. That’s all i was saying. I think it’s silly the word I used is being so scrutinized, rather than the comment itself. Typical of people who just want to argue.
Well I’m certainly not arguing and I’m not scrutinizing any of your words, so I’m not quite sure which one you’re referring to. But I wouldn’t worry about, people will do as they do.
The fact that there’s an entire thread examining and arguing my use of the term “hit” and whether the term really applies to DSC, when that was a minor part of my larger point.
Maybe, this is an aesthetic end goal for the corporate merger. I don’t really care for the KT retconning (that ship has clearly sailed anyway), but the foundation for a new TOS looks very strong in ‘Discovery.’
Pine needs to be careful here its not like he can command A list work elsewhere he is still very much B List & outside Trek never ever opened a movie where he is the main lead. Paramount have options they can recast Kirk & move forward without him if his salary is seen as blackmail. Studios nearly always walk away & go in another direction if the lead actor does not have the leverage. Whoever is advising Pine is not seeing the bigger picture either!!
I think that one fourth movie got shelved because it required the two Chris, and the studio couldn’t afford both. It’s only logical that even if they keep Pine, they better not use a script where his dad had a big role only because the actor is popular.
Clearly Pine doesn’t care. He has enough money and work where he no longer needs Star Trek. He KNOWS they can recast Kirk, they said as much when the dispute happened. The reality is no studio is going to wait for one actor when it comes to a franchise UNLESS that actor is seen vital to the entire franchise like Tom Cruise is to the Mission Impossible movies. This is not the same situation. There were Trek films before the Kelvin movies there will be movies after them.
And while I DON’T blame Pine for holding out, the reality is his presence didn’t save Beyond and that’s a big part of it too IMO. They know they need him but there is no evidence he will bring in more of an audience so its a big dilemma. But it looks like both parties are not begging the other side so eventually they will go another way.
Star Trek 4 the search of Kirk
I really loved Beyond and I really appreciated the way they finally let Kirk be an adult. Pine’s work when he’s really acting can be very interesting to watch. All this is to say, I would love to see Pine versus Harvey Keitel!
I agree except for one thing: Pine’s portrayal of Kirk in STB (and of course the writing) really felt like he was FINALLY the confident Captain we’d been wanting to see since the end shot of ST’09. STID skipped that, we got muddled into him still trying to find himself. In STB we saw the familiar arc of Kirk not struggling with finding himself as a Captain, but dealing with the rigors of BEING the Captain and possible promotion which would see him not being out in space exploring anymore.
I thought this portrayal, the confident Captain so to speak, this presence allowed me to settle in and enjoy STB more. But that’s just me.
Plus, by all accounts he had a lot of great input for the character in STB. I heard it was his idea for that shot of all the uniforms hanging in his closet while the VO said “it all feels episodic”
‘In STB we saw the familiar arc of Kirk not struggling with finding himself as a Captain, but dealing with the rigors of BEING the Captain and possible promotion which would see him not being out in space exploring anymore.’
shame he allowed the enterprise to be shredded while doing it.
Agreed, Tiger2. Pine’s doing what is best for him, and that’s admirable. But neither he nor Hemsworth have a proven box office track record outside of superhero movies that aren’t dependent on them either. The proposed Star Trek 4 was, in retrospect, a disaster from the start–promoting the stars (who ultimately didn’t matter to any of Trek’s box office successes) in order to build buzz for Beyond’s release, but then only had the effect of adding to said stars’ perceived position of leverage.
Again, I don’t think this is correct either. Pine isn’t like the biggest draw or anything, but he’s a prominent actor in the industry and one of the “four Chrises” as the internet likes to say. Same with Chris Hemsworth — he’s gotta be one of the most recognizable actors on the planet. You can’t tell me that they don’t have star power, and they most definitely will matter to Trek’s box office success — and may even be the biggest part of it.
I love Chris Pine as an actor. I’ve watched nearly every film he’s done since 2013 with the exception of two of them. And he’s great in Wonder Woman. That said I think every film he’s been in has bombed except Wonder Woman. Same for Hemsworth, he’s in a ton of films outside of Marvel but I can’t think of one that was a hit in the last five years. Literally not one. If someone can correct me on that I would appreciate it. They do the big comic book stuff it’s easy money. But anything outside of that hasn’t proven the case. Pine was suppose to be the new Jack Ryan and that died after his one movie and now rebooted (again) into a TV show.
Yes, this^. I don’t dispute that Pine and Hemsworth are in a sense “household” names. But their box office track record outside of a couple of tentpole franchises (which are much bigger than any one actor), unfortunately, speaks for itself. At least Chris Pratt has shown more durability and versatility in that regard. But Pine and Hemsworth, as talented as they are, have just never carried a film on their own. Those are just the cold hard numbers.
I guess I’m alone in this but if anything it feels like the MI series can EASILY move on without Cruise. No problem.
I think it can, but part of me hopes Cruise is elevated to the head of the MIF at some point and takes a less active role, becoming the Alec Baldwin character, and maybe takes part in one small action sequence per film.
MIs only appeal at present is how many crazy ass stunts is Cruise willing to do.
Well they are great action films in general. The last three films all got RT ratings in the 90s. I remember when people thought the Bond movies were the better films but it looks like MI has become more lauded, partly because of how crafted they are thanks to Cruise.
Sure in TIME, they can move on without Cruise. But Paramount isn’t going to take that chance now since he’s literally been the face of the franchise for over 20 years. But yes the day he decides to hang it up (and it may be after these movies) I’m sure they can either reboot it or keep it in the same universe it is now with a new star. But he’s so tied to the franchise and because he’s so dedicated to how they are made (he’s basically a co-director, just without the credit) its going to be hard to find someone that dedicated to them.
Again, I disagree. I think the studio is bluffing in saying they can recast him. I truly doubt any other actor they put in the captain’s chair would not be as big a draw as Pine. I think pretty much everyone involved understands that, hence the continued impasse. I truly believe the KT crew will not move forward without Pine at the helm.
Truly doubt not double negatives — point I was making is that Pine is the biggest draw they can put in the role of Kirk, period. He knows it, his agent knows it, Paramount knows it.
But when your ‘biggest draw’ only brings in $340 million on a nearly $200 million budget, that’s the entire issue. He’s not a BIG ENOUGH draw and why they aren’t begging him to do another one. Paramount clearly wants another Trek movie but they aren’t moving heaven and earth to make it happen for a reason.
He was the star of that Coast Guard movie, “Finest Hours”. It was pretty good, but didn’t do much at the Box Office.
I completely disagree with this. Paramount would never recast Captain Kirk in the KT, and I’m sticking to that claim. Chris Pine is the MAIN GUY in the film series. I’m not saying a lot of people watch the KT films because he’s in it, but audiences expect him in the role. Maybe us fans can consider someone else in the role if it means we get more Trek, but the casual viewer would be completely confused and put off if they cast someone else as Kirk. It would be the same for Spock, same for Uhura, Scotty. They are the characters to these people. Chris Pine has the power here.
I don’t think they will either albatrosity, I’m saying is they will probably just reboot the whole thing. That’s what I mean when I say replace him. End of the day they can ALL be replaced. Its harder to do it actor by actor but a new reboot with a new cast from the beginning is something else entirely and probably what they will do.
The reality is the Kelvin NEVER made the money Paramount wanted. They are paying these guys a lot of money to get the same results the Hangover movies use to bring in. Pine’s ‘power’ is limited. You know how I know? Because they shelved the film. That tells you everything. They would LIKE to make a movie with him in it but its obviously not a priority and Star Trek is bigger than one character or actor today. In ten years these Kelvin actors will have moved on completely but there will be new Trek movies.
Pine isn’t hurting for work these days. Not sure where you get this idea he’s just sitting around waiting for Paramount to call.
Let me ask this. . . IF the Tarantino flick’s green-lit, does that bind Chris Pine back into the center-seat at the dollar amount he agreed to (assuming Paramount will still pay that amount) if they want to use him as Kirk?
I ask this because I think the Kelvin-U is reading the writing on the wall, and it doesn’t look favorable for a 4th leg in that offering, unless it’s a Tarantino offering, and with that we haven’t a clue one way or the other, as far as I can tell, if the Tarantino flick is Prime or Kelvin or Mirror or ?. Right? But if Paramount wants. . . Does that bind Pine (and Quinto) into those roles even if it’s out of the JJverse?
Their main issue was affording both Chris. If Tarantino’s movie doesn’t need Thor in it, they won’t need to pay him. That would save them millions they can use to keep the rest of the cast, including Pine.
I agree. Different script, different financial considerations to secure Pine and with Tarantino attached it makes it that much easier to market the movie.
Assuming this merger happens, and considering how cinematic TV shows are now, I’m beginning to wonder if a future Trek movie would simply be a special event episode of Discovery or the Picard series shown in theaters. I mean, “Brother” wasn’t far off from being a movie. Sure looked like one, anyway.
I think IF Discovery or the Picard show is popular enough it could lead into a future film series like TOS and TNG but I think they have to be VERY popular for that to happen. Discovery is barely on blip in terms of mainstream culture so far so I seriously doubt it until it becomes much more popular outside of places like this and catches on with non-Trek fans which I seen no real evidence of. At least so far.
Picard show is possible since obviously that character was in the movies already but I highly doubt it as well. Its still no guarantee the show itself is going to be that popular (but probably more so than Discovery at least) and Paramount may not be up for another TNG film since time has past so long. But the fact Picard is even coming back should tell you nothing is out of the realm of possibility lol.
Right, that’s a good point about popularity.
I keep thinking about the first X-Files movie and how it, if I’m remembering correctly, served as a bridge between seasons of the show. But then the X-Files was hugely popular at that time, and we’re in a very different landscape now.
Still, it would be an interesting experiment to see happen. I thought the BBC were on to something when they simulcast the Doctor Who 50th Anniversary special in some theaters.
I don’t think Disco has to be a pop culture phenomenon to make a good movie for the studios. I think with the right marketing, TPTB can make it a standard sci-fi movie to appeal to genre fans as well as people just interested in seeing another Star Trek movie. And I personally think there’s no shot at Picard returning to the big screen anytime soon, given a.) what you said about that ship having sailed, almost 2 decades ago now, and b.) Kurtzman’s statements about the Picard show having a much smaller feel, which doesn’t sound like a high octane sci-fi adventure show to me.
I don’t disagree but I don’t see anyone rolling the dice on it unless they see a real interest in the show itself beyond just the hardccore base. Why TOS and TNG got movies because they simply became iconic on their own and manage to reach other fans in time. It’s why the other shows never got a film and those had 10+ million people watching in the beginning and went on for years, except Enterprise obviously.
I agree about the Picard show, but its hard to say until we at least see what it is and the reception first. But I really doubt the plan is to transfer it to a film.
Actually, this makes sense — but instead of as a tentpole, more like an “event” screening – like the way live opera is presented in movie theaters. For example, if people were invited to see two or three epsides of Discovery on a Saturday night, I have a feeling many would go. I would!
Yeah, as that old wall between TV and movies continues crumbling, it makes some kind of sense for more of these “events” to happen. Who knows, eventually it could be the only way for a lot of theaters to stay in business. [shrugs]
Apparently it was a JJ complaint that he couldn’t deal with the Trek movie and TV universe all under one roof.
Is it ironic now the first and the last Star Trek movies are the same poster?
I think that particular one sheet was an intentional call back.
So Paramount can open up their coffers to reboot Bayturtles and make more Bayformers films but have no money for a fourth Kelvin film.
I suspect that Paramount will announce that the coffers will be opened up for the Tarantino film. They never said the Tarantino film was cancelled. Dropping what was supposed to be the 4th film clears the way for Tarantino’s.
Cuz those franchises appeal to kids in a way Trek does not. That’s why.
Like it or not, Transformers made a mountain of money. TMNT did not, and along with Trek, won’t be back on the big screen for a while.
Don’t go saying that on Technodrome’s forums!
Kind of happy to get Bad Robot away from Star Trek. I don’t really see what they did for Paramount either. Seems like a lot of self-indulgence to me, and not a whole lot of respect paid toward Star Trek with the 4 years between movies, etc. Not talking about a Kelvin-verse debate, but in the end I don’t think they delivered.
They revived Mission Impossible and Star Trek as viable movie series. I agree that they didn’t deliver a sustained quality Star Trek series, which has been very disappointing.
The long four-year gap between 2009 and Into Darkness really killed the Kelvin movies. Into Darkness and Beyond were decent enough, but the franchise’s good will and momentum vanished during that ‘dark age’. They should have had four movies and been working on No.5 in the time it took them to make three, the same way the Marvel movies kept coming year after after, building momentum. And that’s all on Abrams’s wanderlust spending so much time making the mediocre and now-almost-forgotten “Super 8” instead of striking while the iron was hot and making a second Trek in 2010-11.
When Paramount regroups and starts thinking about Star Trek movies again, I hope they get strong contracts with the production house that they won’t have to wait four years for a second movie if the first one is a hit.
How did the 4 year gap kill STID when it globally outperformed ST09 by a significant margin? Domestically, it was below, but only slightly. What killed the series was the tendency for large budgets.
The four year wait completely derailed the momentum. Trek was GIGANTIC in 09 and 10, there was cereal, it was in television ads, the movie blew up. My non-nerd high school friends all loved it, and we watched it in class, like as part of class one day. Flash forward four years, we’re all in college, and I express my excitement about STID coming up, and they’re all like “oh, I saw the ads, it looks bad,” which is right — the ads and trailers for STID sucked. But the same movie two years earlier, and my friends would’ve been buzzing, cuz it was still big, still fresh! By the time 2013 rolled around, my friend base, none of whom were Trekkies before 2009, had lost interest. It didn’t have to be this way.
Again, a nice anectode, but my son’s friends, who were in 5th grade when ’09 came out, were all in high school for STID and were excited. Momentum or not, it did well.
I agree that a quicker turnaround it could have done better, but “killed” is a bit of hyperbole. It was really only 1 year late, after all. A lot of sequels take 3 years.
These aren’t just anecdotes Afterburn. It’s by and large accepted that STID underperformed, especially in the US where it earned some 30 million less than ST09 and was seen by even fewer people still given inflated 3D ticket prices in 2013. Even three years wait would’ve been a world of difference than four. It was way, way too long, and I can tell you with conviction and data to back it up that the box office for STID was underwhelming *despite* it being the largest overseas grosser. Facts and figures are fine, but only if you understand the context behind them.
And you think the reason it underperformed was because it was a year late?
I think the fact that it came out 2 weeks after Iron Man 3 (1.3B) and a week before Fast & Furious 6 (788M) and The Hangover III (368M) was a much bigger reason.
Three very popular franchises sandwiching it really hurt it’s box office. The reason it wasn’t as profitable as they’d hoped is mostly because the budget was the highest in the series ($185).
4 years was barely ok for TDKR and that was the SECOND sequel AND coming after the huge iconic TDK. for Trek ‘2’ it was a MASSIVE error esp now in the new age of fast sequels. (even SW pumped out Episode 789 only 2 year gaps as they know ppl would get impatient with 3 years gaps). however I believe the REAL reason the JJ films ended up in the toilet was due to BEYOND (I don’t buy the BS that it was everyone hating STID as alot of ppl dug that movie esp the non Trek audience). had they gone with Orcis’ Shatner/anniversary movie I think that would’ve appealed much more to fans (obviously) and moviegoers with vague memories of the TOS movies I think would’ve been curious that the ORIGINAL Captain Kirk was back interacting with the new guys (which would’ve fed into the 50th anniversary too like a ‘Unification’ of Old Trek and Nu even more so than ST09 with Nimoy) it would’ve just been more of an EVENT, and itd have connected more with the hugely successful ST09 in terms of furthering the alt timeline angle/plot..and also as a general rule audiences just dig a timetravel type movie from BTTFs, Terminators, Treks IV/FC/2009, XMen DOFP etc.. they are just more interesting and appealing for the general audience esp the Trek ones. Beyond had no shatner and no timetravel. they were dead before they hit the screen (well they definitely were when that F&F/motorbike/rocksong trailer hit the net ..and when even the trekkies were wetting themselves in anticipation of Episode VII – what a time to drop the ball LOL)
@i’mpaul — not only that, but BadRobot is notoriously incapable of sticking to a budget. Their budgets start high end finish higher. Paramount is seeking to make the next Trek movie on a budget, and Abrams is the wrong partner for that, he’s proven it now three times running. With Abram’s deal up next year, Paramount is clearly biding their time in order to bring in a new producer and reboot the franchise. And make no mistake, they will reboot it, or otherwise owe Bad Robot royalties. Add to that it would seem that Chris Pine has become a trouble maker for them, and has failed to bring them the profits they hoped he would after several major opportunities.
The only problem I see with this QT movie idea, is that his project came in through Bad Robot as I recall. Given that, Paramount would have to buy it away from BR in order to produce it without them.
Bad Robot did pretty much nothing for Trek except create franchise confusion.
Whoa! This could be great news. The cancellation of ST IV (the very forced sounding reunion between Kirk + his father Thor) could actually be a blessing in disguise.
I’d much rather see master filmmaker Quentin Tarantino’s take on Star Trek than a forced reunion of Kirk + his father from a first time director (S.J. Clarkson) of a major motion picture.
This could be a very rare great move from Paramount…Make it so!!!!
ST4 wouldve ended up being a remake of ‘This Means War’ but with Hemsworth instead of Hardy and Alice Eve instead of ReeseW
Pine would sort out his money issues pretty damn smart if Tarantino was aboard, you can take that to the bank.
Money talks, Tarantino could film a monkey taking a shit and it’d box office massively.
No offense but people way overestimate Tarantino’s box office status. His movies make money but thats because they are low to mid budget range films. His movies average around $250 million which is good considering his budgets average around $60-70 million. But he is still considered a niche director, just a famous one. But his movies are not for mass audiences as much as people tout him to be.
Django Unchained is his biggest film to date which did $425 million with a $100 million budget. But then his last movie, Hateful Eight, only did $150 million, which is decent considering it only cost $45 million but his movies BO has always been mid range. Only three of his movies has made more than $100 million in America and two of them had A list stars like Brad Pitt, DiCaprio and Jaime Foxx.
He’s only had one big flop though which was Grindhouse but it was pretty big lol.
There’s a kudos that isn’t there with others.
OK, but I don’t think anyone is going to hand him over a $150 million budget for a genre he has no experience in. I’m guessing if he directs the budget will be much lower. But at this point it will probably be much lower no matter who directs it.
I’m not saying it can’t be a hit obviously but people pretending like it would be a guarantee with just his name on it isn’t being realistic either.
QT’s rejected notion for CASINO ROYALE was to do it for 40 mil and a hard R. That would have been 100 mil less than the Craig travesty that everybody seemed to have — like trek 09 — gone mindlessly gaga over, and probably enormously more respectful of the source material.
Incidentally, it might have granted Brosnan a decent swan song as Bond … as it stands, the only time we really get to see how dark and interesting his Bond could have been is by watching John Boorman’s THE TAILOR OF PANAMA.
I think it’s really the idea that Paramount can market a Tarantino Star Trek film. “Quentin Tarantino to Direct Star Trek 4 for Paramount; Pine Confirmed for 2021 Release” will jump off the page. Star Trek fans will show up, QT fans will show up, Paramount will be praised for such an audacious move.
The next movie needs a shot in the arm and as soon as the story broke about Tarantino I think the writing was on the wall about which project Paramount wanted to move forward with.
I agree that a lot of his acclaim comes from critics, not from box office. But it also speaks to the films he makes: he rarely makes a movie that plays to a general audience, and thus, rarely has big box office totals.
QT’s films work, from a strictly financial standpoint, within a proven niche. Visually and narratively arresting, but within limited budgets. The critical buzz is key to enhancing those films’ commercial appeal. I really think this could be a foundation for a new iteration of the franchise. Blockbuster “tentpole” models are not the way for Trek anyway, so it’s seems like a smart gamble if the talent and funding are there.
Grindhouse. QT isn’t anymore a guarantee then giving Frakes another go.
The one thing QT will guarantee is a word of mouth.
Let’s hope that Paramount brings the true Star Trek back!
What I am wondering is whether if an official Tarantino film is announced, would the actors start coming out of the woodwork just to appear in a Tarantino movie? I am sure Pine might consider appearing in it, but this might also give incentive to Paramount if other more well known actors start lobbying for a role just because its a Tarantino flick.
I suspect that Paramount won’t officially announce the film until after all deals are in place. They never seemed to be entirely behind the film that was initially discussed at the time of Beyond’s release despite the announcement of a director. No official release or start date is always a red flag. Paramount let time run out.
Am also all for a QT Trek film. Enough time has passed now to bring the Kelvin crew into the timeline between TMP – TWOK.
Agree with that Dr Beckett
What about QT makes, shock horror, a ship not called Enterprise, that doesn’t run into an Enterprise, with a crew of new characters who have no connection to anyone else in Trek cannon? Almost like the federation is made of hundreds of thousands….
Sorry, my friends, but Kelvin timeline is dead. Bussines is bussines, and right now, Original timeline is the Big Bussines. CBS rules. And CBS wants to expand the original timeline. You should accept It.
The thing that I wonder about is whether Tarantino’s film involves Kirk and crew. When it comes to a MOVIE, it’s not the director that excites me, it’s the characters. Kirk and crew are the A listers, and movies should always involve the A listers. I might SEE a movie with a different crew, but the level of excitement wouldn’t come close to being the same.
And as for the cast, I have no issue with recasting if need be. Depends on the story he wants to tell.
Tarantino will realize that. That’s why its been reported his movie would include the JJ characters/cast
I recently read an interview from two Hollywood writers who posited, much like Alex Kurtzman recently did, that the 2-hour movie is dead. Their argument is that consumer habits have polarized, meaning they either want to consume media in 3-8 minute chunks or 12-hour binge-watched formats. Admittedly, I can see that my habits have changed over the years. After I watch a two-hour movie, I often get the feeling that the plot wasn’t fully fleshed out, or that it was rushed, as I’m spoiled by the slow burn of quality storied television. It will be interesting to see how this paradigm shift, if it’s a real thing, plays out with a franchise like Trek.
Could you include a link to this article? I know it has to be approved, but I’d be interested in reading it.
Interesting, but I think “dead” is a bit of hyperbole. There’s definitely a move towards what he’s speaking to, but I think the 2 hour feature will be with us for a long time still.
I think movies are just going to be rarer events; instead of Every Two Years or Every Three it’ll be more every four or five years.
To your point, I remember reading about how movies tend to be pushing the 2-hour mark more and more, with many big movies of late having runtimes of 2.5+ hours, I think because people want more movie for their money if they’re gonna leave their home theater dens.
I think it would be good if Kurtzman takes over the umbrella of Trek TV/movies. Abrams did alright w the films but they seem to lack depth and too much action. Star Trek is not Star Wars or Mission Impossible. Kurtzman and Discovery Season 2 feel like the right direction.
We would love to see Enterprise (ENT) brought back for a conclusion of the story.
They did that! It was called “These Are the Voyages…”
Who will Harvey Keitel play :)
A corrupt admiral!
Haha like “Bad Security officer”
I would settle for a mariachi band version of the Trek theme
If you are going to use Tarantino you might as well flush the series down the toilet
I’m all for a QT Trek movie but for god sakes don’t do it with the Kelvin timeline and don’t reboot TOS again!!!!!!!
Look, this is good news. It’s true there is good Trek and bad Trek, but the fact that the studio execs are still name-checking Trek means it is still very much in the pipeline. I’m always optimistic.
Off topic: Bumblebee was a great movie and I’m so stoked for another sequel I’m that world. The first five Transformers movies were trash, so this is good that Travis Knight is getting more work in that franchise
Paramount Prez sounds like a hack. Seems like a pretty thin bench of “franchises” at Paramount. The only one I am remotely interested in is Trek, and they way this guy talks makes me believe more firmly than ever than Trek belongs on TV where the whiz bang tent pole pressure is lesser and some real creativity can live.
If they go forward with a new movie Trek they should keep the current cast. They have done great work, and none of the weakness of Kelvin Trek are due to their work.
And here is hoping Tarantino respects Trek for what it is and doesn’t turn it edgy, dark, ‘splody, and expletive filled to make it “an international blockbuster sensation ‘relevant’ to today’s audience.”
Hold the phones! I missed Paramount’s live action Dora the Explorer franchise plans. Color me interested!
And this year, Paramount has two Trek films in development purgatory. Neither one is anywhere closer to starting then they were a year ago. And, Paramount is still saying there is a future for Trek at the studio. So, once we get past the breathless ‘oh my god, Paramount exec’s are talking Trek’ chatter, when we look at what they are actually saying, there is still no substance. It’ll be a lot easier for Paramount to round up financing for a Trek project when a production house steps up and agrees to make one for around 100MM. Until then, no Trek on the big screen.
Why are the executive’s at CBS so hung up with the TOS Era. It’s been done, let’s move on. Gene Roddenberry said let’s Boaldly Go. Your got 78 years between Kirk and Picard. Let us Boaldly Go and explore that Era. No CBS had to Discovery. The 78 years of stories and aventure’s a much better Crew await us. Give Tarentino a shot, but set the guidelines that this is the new timeframe. Between Kirk and Picard, or something in the 25 Centry. CBS, move foward and quit living in the past.
Sadly its just marketing Jerry. I don’t really get it either since Star Trek has proved it can be very popular without them but I think movie wise they just want a known entity out of the gate where as the TV side can experiment a little more.
But yes I agree, people are saying Tarantino’s name alone is going to get people to turn out to a Star Trek movie then you don’t need those guys anyway. So let him do something new for the SAKE of being new and not just a reinterpretation of the same characters from 50 years ago. If they are so convinced he will drive interest alone then this is the time to do something truly different with Trek on the movie end. Come up with something NEW, especially now that we have Discovery as a back door for TOS and the Picard show is clearly going to be a continuation of TNG canon. I don’t care if they make Picard a boarding school teacher but Romulans, the Borg, the Enterprise, Riker, Worf and Troi are all eventually going to all show up at some point. Mark my words.
This is a chance for Tarantino to make Trek his own.
I agree with your sentiment about setting the Tarantino Trek in a new place with a new cast of characters, except, re:
This is a chance for Tarantino to make Trek his own.
QT’s involvement would reportedly be limited to just the story idea — not even the writing of the screenplay. And, he’s already pitched his story idea to Paramount. So, it’s not clear what further involvement QT would have with the movie. From what’s been reported here, at least, it doesn’t seem like QT would be involved at a level that would put his brand on the movie. The script would be written by someone else, the movie would be directed by someone else, and the whole shebang would be produced by someone else, hopefully — please great God in heaven — not Bad Reboot.
Well if that’s the case and he’s neither directing or writing then yes that would put a big damper on things. May I ask where did you hear that? For the record I have said a few times there was never even a guarantee he was in line to direct it much less doing it. But so many people just make it sound like its a foregone conclusion so you start to believe it yourself. Welcome to the internet I guess.
But if that’s the case what was all of that about it being rated R?? That convinced me he was at least considering it.
So if you’re right it just sounds like a story idea he has and nothing more which also explains why the guy has never even mentioned it. Everyone else talks around his involvement, but he’s never just stated directly he’s involved. That alone is weird to me. Maybe this explains why. Kind of a downer but if its enough to convince them to green light another movie it will be worth it I guess.
Case of someone saying 2 and people hearing 20. It’s never been confirmed that Tarantino was (or wasn’t) producing or directing. But he supposedly had Mark Smith writing his script.
On the John Cho article talkback Cygnus reacted pessimistically to Matt Wright pointing out that Tarantino may be happy just taking a “story by” credit. I believe he’s just running with that.
As for it being R, fans just automatically assumed from the beginning that the movie would be another one of Tarantino’s pulp gorefests. Which to be honest just sounded unlikely for ST and seemed like fans overreacting again as usual. It was later “confirmed” by one of these entertainment news sites, and picked up by TrekMovie, that the film would be R, however the confirmation was never sourced to anything in particular anybody actually said. Someone made an official comment that Tarantino always liked the “horror” aspect of classic ST, leading to fans just assuming that his film would be a horror movie.
To date FOX’s release of Logan and Deadpool as Rated R movies for the X-Men franchise is the only thing that makes a Rated R version of ST seem even tangible. And that in and of itself (without any of the other assumptions attached to it) is not a possibility I would dismiss out of hand for ST.
Yeah, Sam is right. I guess it’s still a possibility that QT could direct it, if no decision has been made yet by Paramount. A writer has been assigned to the project, though. It’s hard to keep straight all of these specific non-details about projects that aren’t even happening yet. I have found, though, that pessimism is usually warranted with regard to Paramount’s handling of Trek over the past 10 years. Will they allow QT to make his own Trek movie? That would be awesome, but it seems unlikely, especially since they’ve hired someone else to write it. If it were going to be a full-on QT project, I’d expect for him to at least be a co-writer, given that it’s his story idea. I mean, why would he pitch a story idea to Paramount, then not be involved in fleshing it out into a screenplay, but then come back to direct it?
Well thanks to both of you!
But I been saying this stuff all along as I had this conversation with Sam in the other thread and said this is exactly why I’m not going to hold my breath over something that sounds VERY questionable since there has been zero movement on anything. This is the first time anyone from Paramount, AFAIK, has even publicly stated QT is involved in a Star Trek project. I mean I believed it but until this news came it could’ve been completely dead for all we knew.
But honestly I still think there are a lot of balls in the air to get too excited. One of the main arguments I kept hearing why or how they can get Pine back is because QT is directing so how could anyone pass that up (although plenty of actors have turned down roles from him, the most famous one, Will Smith) and that became the talking point of getting him back. Now since there is no proof QT is directing then that goes out the window too. MAYBE they would consider giving him the salary he wants if Hemsworth is not involved but they could’ve done that for the fourth film once Hemsworth walked and at least got Pine back and just recast the father role. They didn’t.
So we’ll see. For me, I’ll believe it when a starting date, director and cast is all signed on. Until then color me skeptical after the Kelvin 4 debacle.
the OS is more iconic to mainstream audiences than the TNG era, despite the latter getting way more viewers during its run.
hence returning to it for the ’09 movie.
This is still Hollywood we are talking about. It’s so much easier and profitable to mine every last coin from the tried and true then to roll the dice on something new.
Tarentino pitched an idea to the studio, Paramount said ‘sounds interesting’ and hired a writer. That’s it. No one is committed to anything else at this point, past or future present.
Exactly right Phil! I’m going with your mentality from this point on. Until someone actually SIGNS something and commits with a budget in place, its a lot of hot air and little else.
All of the franchises mentioned are already in a real mess. Paramount better make good on their word because for every single one of those franchises it’s their last chance.
Might be something might be nothing Skydance twitter suddenly posted 2 tweets on beyond & into darkness! Before that its been a long time since they mentioned any of the Trek co-produced movies. This is hopefully a good sign they are moving forward on a new sequel!!!!
The merger would put back together the jigsaw puzzle that is the separated Star Trek properties. Even if no merger takes places, both companies should at least co-operate in patching up the mutual restrictions that hobble both sets of projects. Putting Discovery in the “Kelvin” timeline makes more sense, and making Star Trek movies featuring new characters introduced on Discovery, albeit as a decade older, would solve the problem of the cost of casting for a Star Trek movie. The older, newer cast (confusing isn’t it) can’t be hired with in budget, most of the main cast are big stars now, as well as one promising young actor deceased.