Paramount Confirms Multiple Star Trek Films In The Works Amidst Management Shakeup

Since re-merging almost two years ago, ViacomCBS has gone through a number of changes, moving more and more of its focus to streaming and Paramount+. The latest moves are happening at Paramount Pictures with a major management shift, but amongst all the changes we got another confirmation the studio is developing multiple Star Trek films.

Paramount has a new chief

On Tuesday, ViacomCBS officially confirmed what had been reported earlier in the trades. Paramount Chairman and CEO Jim Gianopulos is handing over the reins to Brian Robbins, who has been appointed President and CEO of the studio in addition to maintaining his current responsibilities leading Nickelodeon. Gianopulos remains at Paramount in an advisory role through the end of the year to help ensure a smooth transition.

The studio is also splitting up its film and television divisions. Paramount Television Studios will now become part of the premium network group under the leadership of Showtime CEO David Nevins, who also oversees all scripted television for Paramount+.

According to media accounts, the management changes are all part of the ViacomCBS focus on streaming. Variety reports Robbins convinced ViacomCBS chairman Shari Redstone “on his vision for the studio and his plans to shift its emphasis in the direction of feeding Paramount Plus.” According to the New York Times, Gianopulos “had, at times, resisted a ViacomCBS effort to prioritize the Paramount+ streaming service at the expense of ticket sales and theaters.” The Wall Street Journal first broke the news last week, saying Redstone was impressed with Robbins’ ability to “tap into younger audiences,” seen as key to Paramount+.

Brian Robbins is the new head of Paramount Pictures.

Outgoing chief memo talks Trek

Star Trek entered the story briefly on Tuesday, getting a mention in a memo about the changes from Gianopulus (via THR).

Since its inception, Paramount has been synonymous with great theatrical entertainment, and together, we have launched massive global hits like Mission: Impossible—Fallout, and helped build new cinematic worlds, like A Quiet Place and Sonic the Hedgehog, and elevated existing ones, like Transformers and, Star Trek (with new films in the works), among others.

The noteworthy bit is Gianopulus’ mention of multiple Star Trek films being “in the works.” The biggest of those is of course the one that is actually on their release calendar for June 9, 2023, to be directed by Matt Shakman, with a script already completed. It has also been reported this year that producer J.J. Abrams has a second new Trek film project in the works, based on a script from Kalinda Vazquez. It’s possible there are other projects in development as well. Developing multiple projects has become the norm for franchise films in recent years, much like the way Paramount is handling other franchises like Transformers, Mission: Impossible, and GI Joe, but it is something new for Star Trek.

Paramount Pictures has not released a Star Trek feature film since 2016’s Star Trek Beyond, which underperformed and even predates Gianopulus’ reign at the studio. In 2020, he brought in Emma Watts, who had worked for him previously at Fox. Watts put all previous Star Trek projects on hold, including one from Noah Hawley that was close to starting pre-production. Other projects including the one based on a pitch from Quentin Tarantino and a sequel to Beyond featuring Chris Hemsworth returning as Kirk’s father also appear currently dormant.

In the last year, Watts has worked with Abrams to develop the 2023 Shakman-directed film, and the Vazquez-penned movie. It’s not known if the shakeup will impact Watts’ role or if Robbins will make any changes with regard to the current Star Trek projects in the works.

Outgoing studio chief Gianopulus is a studio veteran from Fox.

Paramount+ focus

ViacomCBS has made Star Trek a major part of Paramount+, with five television shows currently in production and others in development for the future. With the new emphasis on Paramount+ across ViacomCBS, it is likely that some current Paramount Pictures projects will become Paramount+ exclusives, which could include one or more future Star Trek films.

They may also start experimenting with shorter windows between theatrical releases and streaming releases, or possibly even simultaneous releases. New Paramount studio chief Robbins spearheaded the recent simultaneous release of Paw Patrol, which still exceeded box office targets, according to Deadline. And it has been reported that Robbins plans to focus more on smaller budget films. According to The Hollywood Reporter, these kinds of moves with theatrical windows and focus on costs may set up a clash between the studio and filmmakers, and could also impact the quality.

The bottom line is that for now, things continue to change at ViacomCBS and Paramount Pictures, the home of the Star Trek films. These changes will likely impact the future of Star Trek movies, which are hopefully coming to a big screen (and also possibly a small screen) in 2023 and beyond.

Find more on upcoming Star Trek films at

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well, the news I’m rooting for are multiple streaming movies for P+ on an annual basis. Moderate budgets instead of blowing out millions through an airlock. P+ should launch an anthology movie series with an own identity such as the DC animated movies that have come out since the mid aughties.

Each movie should focus on a different era, including well-known settings with guest stars from various legacy series as well as entirely new settings in the multiple lost eras of Trek. This could include moderate budget KT movies, MU movies and historical “epics” set on alien worlds such as Vulcan, Q’onos or Romulus or even the heydays of the Iconian Empire. There could be different target audiences: full R-Rated MU universe romps along with nostalgic G-Rated “Explorers” kind of films. Sucessful outings could receive sequels, others are just single standalone movies. In addition, limited mini-series could further flesh out the universe.

Not big-screen, not small-screen, I’d call these movies mid-screen endeavors :-) Trek could set up a legendary legacy with lots of fan favourites and instant classics without having to worry about do-or-die cinematic box office performances.

there’s no need for full R rated. That’s just lazy in both storytelling and shooting. You can have action and romance without needing to alienate an entire demographic with unnecessary titilation for the sake of it.

I agree made-for-streaming Star Trek movies are a great way to build out the universe.

The post-Nemesis Relaunch Litverse is so rich and diverse. It shows how very many different thing Trek can be across all the eras.

Bring on the Starfleet Core of Engineers, Bureau of Temporal Investigations, Starfleet Medical, Vanguard station, and comedies, romances.

And maybe even an adaptation of Mack’s Destiny trilogy.

Bring it on!

Honestly, I think I would prefer if they made smaller budget movies on Paramount+ because as you said they can be far more creative and actually take chances like they do with the shows.

I love watching big screen Trek movies like everyone else, but since people seem convinced the only ‘marketable’ movies are with just TOS or TNG characters and the studio seem to think these movies only can get a mainstream audience with one note uber villains who wants to take down the Federation with big ships and lots of explosions, then yeah it’s probably better not to keep going that route.

When ST 2009 came into theaters, it really did feel fresh and different because we never saw a really big budget Trek film before. By the time it got to Beyond, just two films later it was already feeling stale and formalic, hence why that film didn’t do better and now the film series being in the dilemma that it is.

Wipe the slate clean with something smaller, with various concepts and new characters that can still feel like a Star Trek movie and not just an overblown action film that just have Kirk jumping off stuff all time.

“ one note uber villains who wants to take down the Federation with big ships and lots of explosions” you just described ST2009, so how did it feel “fresh” exactly?

It obviously wasn’t completely. BUT it was the first time for these movies and Nero’s actions did set up the universe so it was easier to accept its purpose at least because it was building up something much bigger in the process.

The problem was going back to it again in the next movie…and then the next one after that. They literally had a new universe to play in and diversify the story telling in a way the Star Trek TV shows did extraordinary well. I will never understand it myself but another reason why they wore out their welcome so fast.

I always thought about the irony how the TV shows got accused of repeating the same tropes over again, which is also true, but with literally hundreds of episodes and multiple shows it’s bound to happen at times. But then the movies repeated the same premise literally four times straight including every single Kelvin movie. Just boggles the mind. So much potential wasted.

I like this idea, there can be smaller more philosophical films and also slightly bigger action oriented films so there could be an excellent variety. Also they could use these paramount+ films as pilots to launch new series with new characters too.

Quality should be paramount (pun intended) but quantity is important too. So I’m excited by the prospect of multiple Trek films, especially since it has already been over 5 years since the last one.

Well, this is encouraging……

For Star Trek fans, sure. For anyone hoping Paramount and ViacomCBS get back to their glory days… not so much.

Lower budget films make sense for a streaming service. Why spend over $100 million on a tv movie when that money can buy you a whole season of a glassy tv series. Even if it means you can afford a big Star or three, it’s not like critically-derided films like The Tomorrow War, Infinite or Without Remorse or even Coming 2 America would have done terribly well in theaters.

Save the big bucks for the blockbusters and don’t feel the need to make so many of them. Dominating box office market share is not more important than actual profit and sowing the seeds for future growth. I just hope they stay solvent, don’t get merged with someone awful, and that money goes into making Paramount+ a worthwhile service and not the clunky dinosaur it is right now.

In other news, I had a some coffee with pumpkin spice creamer today.

Tarantino’s Gangster Trek back on?

Would Tarantino do a stream only movie? Not sure myself to be honest.

I honestly hope not. it became clear from interviews with Tarantino that he wasn’t well-versed in the franchise.

I deeply, truly hope not.


In other words they are running around like a chook with its head cut off.

A lower budget Star Trek movie will change the focus from spectacle and action to character and story. This is good news for Star Trek, which has always been known (prior to 2009) to be more creative with a smaller-than-desired budget.

I don’t know. Being on TV with a smaller budget hasn’t helped Discovery very much in terms of dialing down spectacle and focusing on higher quality storylines.

I don’t think Discovery has a “smaller budget”. The first couple of seasons had budgets in the range of $100M+. CBS/Paramount/Netflix would like that money to appear on screen as much as possible, but really led to team building a two-story Klingon ship bridge that only appears briefly in like 4 episodes and a 3D-printed torchbearer’s suit that appears onscreen for about 5 seconds. Similarly, Picard seems to have a lavish budget, but it didn’t seem like it was moderated well to last into the final two episodes.

I agree with VZX, smaller budgets ($40-50M) would necessitate reuse of existing elements (ala Short Treks) and a focus on story/character and would hopefully avoid the spending goofs in current Trek output.

I don’t know about Picard, the copy-paste ships, early 2000s era space and ship effects and now filming in contemporary times makes me think that show probably has the lowest budget of all the currently airing Trek shows. Or they just spend all their budget on Patrick Stewarts salary.

The copy-paste ships sound like it was more about time than money. From what I read, they only had 6 days to do that scene and were already behind on other FX shots as well.

And I’m pretty sure Lower Decks is the cheapest show, since it’s animated and no huge stars for the voice acting.

Jerry OConnell is weeping somewhere.

LOL! I love O’Connell, but I wouldn’t call him a ‘huge star’ either. The last thing I saw him in before this show was a supporting guest role on Billions. I know he’s doing The Talk as well, but don’t watch it.

What a mess! They’ve been talking about multiple Star Trek properties for years. Rather than study what Disney’s been making a killing with for the past 3 years, their big management idea is to separate to the entrenched film and TV divisions again rather than creating a Star Trek branded unit that produces content for the film and TV/streaming markets!

Promote the studio brand over the product brand ’til the very end! Dumbasses…

You… don’t seem to have understand what the article is saying.

You don’t understand Paramount. And clearly don’t understand the difference between dedicated IP development and promotion VS producer promotion.

Star Trek needs an autonomous production unit like Marvel Entertainment and LucasFilm – who gives a crap about Paramount, their ego trip glory, and their dumbass management. (Honestly, how stupid do you have to be to NOT be able to look over the hill and see the most successful American conglomerate since General Electric?! – – AND WATCH WHAT THEY’RE DOING!)

These goofballs have shifted Star Trek back to TV/streaming while the Film unit is spun off while throwing up more sh** talk out of the side of their mouths about making movies – – in both cases to further the dysfunctional Paramount Brand not the IP as a universe of entertainment.

Star Trek is just another piece of flotsam to either… they’d just as soon create Mission Impossible product.

This is actually true. I remember reading the article when Zachery Quinto reported Paramount was working on ‘multiple’ Trek projects at the time, then it were the movies with Hemsworth and the Tarantino movie. Both of those later became DOA.

I want to have hope something will come out of these though. But I do think knowing they will have lower budgets plus being added to Paramount+ which like Disney and WB, they are now focus on like a laser will actually produce some movies this time.

Agreed. This is what killed it before. We need some continuity and some Excitement in Trek. Discovery is a bore and focusing the kicked out and jailed starfleet officer stupid. Episodic tv needs to be Trek. Look how guest appearance by Anson Mount turned into a series that will be episodic and I’ll bet the biggest hit for them right away. It will speed ahead of what they wrongly changed the last few years. It will revive the franchise.

I love the hell out of Michael. But then Sisko is my fave captain and so is Janeway, love them a bit ruthless.

I still can’t believe Janeway will be coming back next month. Albeit in hologram form, but I’ll still take it!

Isn’t Robbins the kid from Head of the Class?

ha! You’re absolutely right!

Yes, he is.

For Paramount+ to thrive they will need a wholly original signature series along the lines of a Ted Lasso, Handmaid’s Tale or Stranger things, something that doesn’t rely on an existing IP with an audience that tends to skew older or has no interesting in sampling other Paramount+ original content.

Paramount+ is now the Star Trek channel and unless that perception changes it will have limited appeal long term.

Not everyone watches P+ for Trek.

The Good Fight (spinoff of the CBS series The Good Wife) is a P+ exclusive premium drama that has a cast filled with Hollywood and Broadway stars. Massively popular and well-rated.

Original comedies like No Activity (from Will Ferrell / Adam McKay), etc.

There’s anthology series like Why Women Kill and Jordan Peele’s take on The Twilight Zone (which is less an ‘existing IP’ than a brand)

I agree that they do need to develop and promote a big signature series for the ‘halo effect’ that makes it a must-subscribe service. It could just be that Trek is that thing for them, but it’s not the only thing, thankfully.

Well Halo is coming to P+ this winter 😉

Probably a better fit than Showtime, I suppose.

Popular on Paramount+ but still older skewing and virtually unknown off of the platform.

And I’m an older skewing guy, so…

If even one of these could just get out of development into production, it’s a win.

Yeah, saying something is in development is kinda like commenting that McDonalds makes hamburgers. Absent any other information, someday Trek will make it back to the big screen. Just not anytime soon.

Hemsworth and Pine are both attached to (other) projects also due in June 2023. Read what you want into that, but that fact alone, along with the June 2023 untitled Trek release date being only about 20 months out now really fuels my skepticism that whatever Trek is in the system, we’ll likely see something feature length on the streaming service long before one hits the theaters again.

Pretty sure they wrote Beyond in a day and shot in 2 weeks. There’s no way any more time was spent on that contemptible piece of garbage.

While I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true, isn’t the “multiple films” referring to Transformers and Star Trek *combined*? (The comma confuses things, but even if you ignore the parenthetical that comma appears to be a typo.) If so, it doesn’t really imply (or rule out) multiple from either franchise.

Have my fingers crossed but honestly still have doubt either will happen until there is a green light with an actual budget and cast. It’s been a lot of talk for the last five years now. Tons of articles for sites like this to post, but yeah nothing beyond that.

But I am still hopeful of course. Knowing they will be cheaper is a huge plus since it lowers the risk. The Kelvin movies just cost WAY too much for what they got in return. I don’t think any of them achieved anywhere close to what Paramount wanted or expected, definitely not the last one.

We’re workin on it…….

Sorry, there isn’t much to see here, folks. Someday, Trek will return to the big screen. Someday.

As I have stated before, I will believe a Star Trek movie is coming when i am sitting in the theater with the post credits scrolling down the screen. We have been down this road before and know how it usually ends. Seems like no one at Paramount knows what to do to produce a Star Trek film.

The question is by the time they finally get their act together and actually put a Star Trek movie into production for real, will there be a big screen to return to?

I prefer that they take it slow and, just release a quality product when the time is right.

When the sentence of your memo touting the greatness of your studio cites Sonic the Hedgehog and Transformers… yep, pretty much says it all about our favorite media conglomerate. But to be clear, I’m sure Bumblebee was better than the cinematic season of Star Trek about a kid who destroyed all dilithium in the galaxy by having a tantrum.

I might be misinterpreting this, but…

elevated existing ones, like Transformers and, Star Trek (with new films in the works), among others

…can be satisfied with one new Transformers and one new Star Trek movie. It doesn’t necessarily mean more than one Star Trek movie.

That’s the way I took it too


Looking at what Sony has been able to produce with pretty small budgets but well produce films lately, smaller budgets should be off no concerns. Fan films have also shown what you can do with small to zero budgets.

Never going to learn that Star Trek almost never works on the big screen. Let’s cluster bomb theaters with Mediocre Trek rather than making it stronger by making films scarce and TV abundant.

TMP, II, IV, VI, First Contact, 2009, and Into Darkness were all very successful at the Box Office and all but TMP got good reviews from mainstream media.

I wouldn’t assume that there are going to be multiple Star Trek movies planned for release.
More like they have allowed multiple pitches to be developed and they will pick the one that sits right with Paramount and which they would want to proceed with, the rest being shelved at best, or jettisoned entirely, down the road.
The Star Trek movies are in a crossroads period after Beyond underperforming because they have to change course and there is no obviously direction to go with it, hence why Paramount would likely want many different ideas coming forth, working out what they can do with it going forward.

Multiple Star Trek movies.. I’d believe it only if I see it!

Except for 2009, Trek suffered from lack of adverts and very low penetration of the non-Trek audience. And it was definitely aimed at the mainstream.

In 2021-22 what are people going out of their homes to see? Something new or something they can bring their kids to.

If an investment like the Hawley idea was too risky, then we should probably just forget it.

That said, I bet a Prodigy movie that’s aimed at the early afternoon audience where parents can bring their kids – that could be as successful as the animated Spiderman feature and all the DC animated feature films.

Oh yes, I can totally see a cinematic feature for Prodigy as a thing, likely in 2024 – just as the first cohort of viewers are aging out and they need to update the CGI and attract a new crop of viewers.

As long as Janeway is still there, I’ll go see it! :)

Hopefully, we’ll all get another ‘Star Trek’ adventure on the big screen again before too long….no matter who the crew turns out to be.

@ Tiger2 – I wrote out an extensive reply to your query at the bottom of the recent ‘Strange New Worlds panel’ topic, by the way. Enjoy.

Brian Robbins has come a long way since he was on Head of the Class.

…and Matt Shakman since Just the Ten of Us. A pair of former ABC sitcom child stars are guiding the future of Star Trek films.

We need Quenton, Chris pine, all the others. I know the star that played Chekov may be gone, we could put some one like him like Tom Holland in the character. I think he would be great. Same shape as the Anton, RIP.
Tom is Flexible. And I think Anton wouldn’t mind if Tom played this great character.

Drop Simon Pegg. He does Scotty a disservice and his dramatic writing skills are questionable.

They should invest in remastering DS9 & VOY to HD (or above). That would be 14 seasons, 348 episodes

That would be lovely. As has been mentioned before they could even release one HD episode per week on P+ and have us 90’s Trek fans subbed for quite a while.

They did that, I would likely sign up for P+.

Have to agree. I would actually prefer DS9 and VOY in HD instead of another film. After just rewatching all of DS9 recently and currently on season 7 of VOY I realize just how much more appealing these shows would be in HD. Certainly for new fans now that Paramount+ is pushing people to watch these shows more and more again.

It would be way more ambitious of a project than remastering TOS and TNG. and more expensive. And they didn’t even future proof those for 4K. They are only at 2K resolution. If they ever want to do 4K TOS it has to be totally redone or upscaled.

I don’t really care anymore and I hate all of Paramount’s movie ideas insofar as JJ is attached. I want them to focus on a unified universe related to Paramount+.

Its the wrong decision. Paramount+ will never achieve the critical mass to be competitive to the bigger streaming services, so on the long term it will fail or get sold.
They should have focused on feeding content to the big players as they soon will be fighting about content.

I don’t see any positives here beyond Paramount moving beyond Bayformers. Star Trek is still frozen in carbonite since the failure of Beyond. The very dead Kelvin Timeline hasn’t had a new film in almost 5 years.

Actually it’s been OVER 5 years now. Beyond came out in July of 2016. ;)

But yes it is amazing how quickly the Kelvin Timeline died. I been reading recently a lot of the reviews and excitement of the first film on this very site. There was this assumption those movies would define Star Trek for the next decade and, sorry, beyond. I still think they are very much canon (thanks to Picard at least) and an important part of the franchise for opening up the multiverse concept more, but so many fans seem to want to just wipe them out of existence for good now. Amazing how fast trends can turn.

Another Kelvin movie still might happen in the future, but the dead silence from Pegg, Quinto and others lead me to believe the next movie has nothing to do with them being in it. Could be wrong, but yeah.

yes, initially it was almost like ‘say goodbye to your fathers/grandfathers star trek’ of TOS/movies/TNG etc – for here is ‘next generation star trek’ that will wipe the old one – ok not canonically (for the few)..but in the eyes of the many it was a reboot like Casino Royale and Batman Begins. ‘Prime Trek’ was dead baby..Trekmovie/bbs and a Countdown comic was all that was left of that religion.. in chances of the ‘Prime verse’ returning in any capacity any time soon was very unlikely..(perhaps similar to how dead TOS appeared to be for a while – until ST09) and the idea of Professor Charles Xavier coming back to Jean Luc Picard was as unlikely and impossible as Nimoy returning to Trek pre 2006/07.

and yet. here we are… ‘kelvin trek’ is almost but a footnote in the all reigning Primeverse.. with power over millions.. – but a footnote that may.. once again.. spread throughout the multiplexes (if STXIV takes note of Marvel/DC and is to be something of a multiverse movie..)

It’s just amazing too me how myopic some fans are, especially when it comes to a long time franchise like Star Trek. TOS should’ve taught them from the beginning nothing is dead forever in this franchise.

I used to shake my head over and over again when people said things like the prime universe was gone for good, or all the TNG characters and universe was now completely, UTTERLY dead and never coming back due to set of new movies…but by a company which at the time didn’t even own the rights to the franchise lol. That was really the oddest argument to me. Paramount was only licensing it from CBS so they only had a TINY ownership of the franchise, which was literally those movies. only. They had little to no say to everything else in it and especially where Star Trek actually thrived the most, the TV shows.

But many were really convinced these movies and ONLY these movies would now just replace forty years and 700 hours of content, most of that made within the last two decades and created millions of new fans in the process. That’s right, just wipe your hands of the billions of dollars these shows have made through merchandising and advertising dollars for decades. One show got cancelled prematurely after 18 years of others being highly successful and because the first Kelvin movie made a whopping $385 million so it was ‘over’. That $385 million felt impressive for Star Trek, but was still on the very very low end of big franchises. The first Transformer movie made nearly twice that for the same amount of money two years earlier. Tom Cruise entire career was considered dead because MI 3 only made $400 million three years before that and it actually cost less than Star Trek did. But yes it’s Tom Cruise, so…

Now of course for the record, they could’ve been right. Maybe these movies would’ve been the driving force of the franchise for a long time. But again, it was still odd to believe that there could be nothing else along with it because CBS wasn’t going to just sit on the sidelines forever. Sooner or later, they would start up the prime universe again because that’s where all the merchandising money was still happening YEARS later. Another bizarre thing fans just dismissed. That’s why I knew the prime universe was going nowhere, especially after that bizarre report JJ Abrams wanted them to stop selling the original prime universe merchandise for his own Kelvin stuff. I have NO idea how true that story is even now, but if it was, once he was laughed out of the room is what told me no way are they going to just let go of the prime universe. It was coming back at some point. When and how, no clue, but it was never a ‘if’ but a ‘when’. For me, that made it crystal clear. And man thank Kahless they didn’t listen lol because the Kelvin merchandise died after the first film. Another sign these movies were never as ‘solid’ as fans thought. You couldn’t even find a T-shirt at Target when Beyond came out.

So yes, here we are. They now have a kids cartoon starring Janeway coming out next month in the hopes it will not just get youngsters into watching all that content on Paramount+ some fans thought the company wanted them to ‘forget’ but to start up the merchandising arm and selling toys again. You now have both new and decades old legacy characters you can resell to old and new fans alike. And why we will only be seeing more legacy characters in the coming years, not less.

For the record I don’t think the Kelvin movies are ‘dead’ either. It would be just as short sighted of me to say that, like all those fans back in ’09. This is how Hollywood works now, if something made them money before then the bet is it will still make them money again. They just have to rework their strategy with that universe and those characters as we are seeing with the prime universe. It may be a few more years but they can be back to. In what form or format, who knows, but don’t count ANYTHING out with Star Trek. I think that’s the lesson people are (finally) learning.

Its strange how Craig Bond was supposed to be a reboot and then suddenly they play up his age and tied it to the existing films and it fell to fanservice. Sam Mendes apparently wanted it to be a continuation, at least that is how i interpret it. The new film No Time to Die has all the hallmarks of a regular james bond movie turned up to 11, and should be the concluding chapter until they recast again i suppose. Cary Fukanaga seems to be throwing in everything, and there hasn’t ever been a 300 million dollar 007 film until now.

As for Patrick playing Disney’s Professor X he turned it down. I mean the MCU version.

They are usually rushing and throw together a script like they are writing for tv or something and the movies rarely work when they do work, when they don’t they really don’t. By the 14th one you figure they’d have figured the recipe or formula out, they haven’t. Meyer, Bennett and Nimoy figured it out i think but the TNG people only accidentally found it with First Contact and never again. And i don’t really think the KT people ever really captured it, 2009 was a bold attempt.

The Kelvin movies were stunted by the divided franchise. The TV half had the original appearance of all of the familiar aliens and villains.My understanding was that any characters, props ,etc had to be different from those used on the TV side. In my opinion splitting the franchise did more harm to the continuity of Trek than any amount of bad scripts ever did. Trek had some less than stellar episodes near the end of its run on TV but the fans never gave up on Trek and were waiting on its return to both TV AND the big screen,

Goodbye integrity, hello paycheck. Citing utter garbage like Transformers and Sonic does not bode well.

i think these will be Paramount + movies for their streaming service, similar to how Netflix has movies they release….and maybe we’ll have a 2-3 week limited theatrical run

Jesus Christ, who can follow all of this weird Hollywood bullspit …. lol
Whatever: does it mean we can FINALLY get back
to normal post-“Nemesis” “Star Trek” …??

I would love to see a younger Picard movie where he started out as the captain of the Stargazer. That would be something new.