Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?

[Visitor1982]

Star Trek Into Darkness barely made a profit.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...lms-that-barely-made-a-profit.html/?a=viewall

CBS earns more money from TOS and TNG merchandise than Paramount does with the movies I believe.

Therefor, if there will be a third movie in the Abramsverse (doubtful) I believe it will be the last.

CBS wants to return to the prime universe for television. Paramount might want to follow them...

Bad Robot will be out after the third movie, perhaps they are never going to make the third movie at all.

We'll see what happens.

 

[Dukhat]

Star Trek Into Darkness barely made a profit.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...lms-that-barely-made-a-profit.html/?a=viewall

Star Trek Into Darkness was released on May 16; it made $228 million domestically and $238 million overseas for a worldwide total of $466 million. Directed by J.J. Abrams and starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Benedict Cumberbatch, the film actually made more money than its predecessor, 2009′s Star Trek, which took in $385 million worldwide. But with a production budget of $190 million, Star Trek Into Darkness was a risky play to turn a profit.
While there’s no doubt the film will ultimately be a moneymaker for Paramount and Viacom when home media profits are factored in, the film was not nearly the kind of success the studio had hoped for. The general rule of thumb in the modern age of Hollywood blockbusters is to take a film’s production budget and double it to factor in the monstrous price of advertising — using that estimate, Star Trek Into Darkness would barely come out on top.

This reviewer clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

CBS wants to return to the prime universe for television.

Huh? When did CBS make that statement?

 

[Ovation]

Star Trek Into Darkness barely made a profit.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/...lms-that-barely-made-a-profit.html/?a=viewall

CBS earns more money from TOS and TNG merchandise than Paramount does with the movies I believe.

Therefor, if there will be a third movie in the Abramsverse (doubtful) I believe it will be the last.

CBS wants to return to the prime universe for television. Paramount might want to follow them...

Bad Robot will be out after the third movie, perhaps they are never going to make the third movie at all.

We'll see what happens.

Repeating wishful fantasies (like all of the above) over and over does not increase their likelihood of becoming reality. Just FYI.

 

[JWPlatt]

Yep. But the next movie will probably be the first Trek film ever that I will not see in the theater. I'll wait for the DVD/Blu-ray until they get the story back to our Prime Universe.

"Our" Prime Universe? Outside of TOS, you can have it.

But the above just seems self-defeating. Whenever these big films come out (Trek/TNG/Star Wars/Marvel/DC/etc.), I go out with the wife, get dinner and discuss them good or bad afterward. Just having a great time. Which is what I thought the entertainment experience was suppose to be about?

For many of us Star Trek was about and an inspiration for our futures in the life and career we pursued. It was not just for entertainment, but for the hopes of our future and meaning in our lives. The stories were simple, the effects and acting were sometimes cheesy, but we got past that and saw the heart of it. Today's movies are by far superior in every way to the show, but in someone else's Universe just for entertainment, it has no relevance or hope for me or my children. If you want to go see movies for entertainment, that's fine. We do too. But Star Trek is becoming like the ex-spouse. You still believe in love and want to find someone with meaning. But the one you knew let you down and you just move on to anyone else but them.

 

[Dukhat]

But Star Trek is becoming like the ex-spouse. You still believe in love and want to find someone with meaning. But the one you knew let you down and you just move on to anyone else but them.

Or you could just not watch the new stuff. That way you wouldn't feel so heartbroken.

 

[JWPlatt]

But Star Trek is becoming like the ex-spouse. You still believe in love and want to find someone with meaning. But the one you knew let you down and you just move on to anyone else but them.

Or you could just not watch the new stuff. That way you wouldn't feel so heartbroken.

That's just what I said. But "new stuff" could include our own Universe, so I don't rule out all "new stuff" once the Abramsverse runs its course.

 

[BillJ]

For many of us Star Trek was about and an inspiration for our futures in the life and career we pursued. It was not just for entertainment, but for the hopes of our future and meaning in our lives. The stories were simple, the effects and acting were sometimes cheesy, but we got past that and saw the heart of it. Today's movies are by far superior in every way to the show, but in someone else's Universe just for entertainment, it has no relevance or hope for me or my children. If you want to go see movies for entertainment, that's fine. We do too. But Star Trek is becoming like the ex-spouse. You still believe in love and want to find someone with meaning. But the one you knew let you down and you just move on to anyone else but them.

I'll leave it alone but I think you're seeing an awful lot that was never there.

 

[BillJ]

That's just what I said. But "new stuff" could include our own Universe, so I don't rule out all "new stuff" once the Abramsverse runs its course.

I think this bothers me the most. It is the "anything but what we have now" complaint. This pops up with every single new iteration of the franchise.

You do know that a new series (or movies), even if set in the Prime universe, will look and act much more like the Abrams films than anything produced by Rick Berman and Company?

 

[F. King Daniel]

CBS wants to return to the prime universe for television.

Huh? When did CBS make that statement?

As far as I can tell, it stems from a post on the "Enterprise Season 5" Facebook page:

5) CBS reads this page daily, what this means in plain English is that they see all of the negative nasty comments that are thrown at them and it makes them less likely to do anything. as it was explained, CBS Television had ZERO to do with the JJ Movies and they are insulted and offended that they have been lumped in with the execs at Paramount that made the decision to move forward with them, they understand it’s not what the fans want, and are taking careful baby steps to ensure that they do not make a mistake in this matter, esp with 2016 right around the corner.

Are there any other sources that CBS dislikes the reboot movies?

 

[BillJ]

Are there any other sources that CBS dislikes the reboot movies?

I still don't think this makes any fucking sense. They get a licensing fee from Paramount (free money) and continued exposure for the property (free advertising).

Why exactly would CBS dislike them?

 

[JWPlatt]

That's just what I said. But "new stuff" could include our own Universe, so I don't rule out all "new stuff" once the Abramsverse runs its course.

I think this bothers me the most. It is the "anything but what we have now" complaint. This pops up with every single new iteration of the franchise.

You do know that a new series (or movies), even if set in the Prime universe, will look and act much more like the Abrams films than anything produced by Rick Berman and Company?

Yes, and it's still preferable. Good story-telling obeys the rules it sets up for itself. So I would have hopes that it would have to be more self-consistent than an alternate reality where those rules were abandoned for the specific purpose of anything goes. I didn't always like Berman & Braga either, but I always looked forward to the next Trek series or movie. The "anything but what we have" argument doesn't fly here for me as this is the first time I've felt this way.

 

[BillJ]

Yes, and it's still preferable. Good story-telling obeys the rules it sets up for itself. So I would have hopes that it would have to be more self-consistent than an alternate reality where those rules were abandoned for the specific purpose of anything goes. I didn't always like Berman & Braga either, but I always looked forward to the next Trek series or movie.

Been watching Star Trek for a really, really long time. What rules exactly have the Abrams films broken?

 

[fireproof78]

Yep. But the next movie will probably be the first Trek film ever that I will not see in the theater. I'll wait for the DVD/Blu-ray until they get the story back to our Prime Universe.

"Our" Prime Universe? Outside of TOS, you can have it.

But the above just seems self-defeating. Whenever these big films come out (Trek/TNG/Star Wars/Marvel/DC/etc.), I go out with the wife, get dinner and discuss them good or bad afterward. Just having a great time. Which is what I thought the entertainment experience was suppose to be about?

For many of us Star Trek was about and an inspiration for our futures in the life and career we pursued. It was not just for entertainment, but for the hopes of our future and meaning in our lives. The stories were simple, the effects and acting were sometimes cheesy, but we got past that and saw the heart of it. Today's movies are by far superior in every way to the show, but in someone else's Universe just for entertainment, it has no relevance or hope for me or my children. If you want to go see movies for entertainment, that's fine. We do too. But Star Trek is becoming like the ex-spouse. You still believe in love and want to find someone with meaning. But the one you knew let you down and you just move on to anyone else but them.

Well, respectfully, I disagree. I understand your point of view, that of the hopefulness in the future of Trek, and its impact.

However, I don't just watch Abrams Trek or any other Trek just for entertainment. I actually find Abrams Trek to be more culturally relevant and reflective of current struggles in society and how to overcome them.

I don't always find Prime Trek to be positive or hopeful. Sometimes it is downright depressing or irrelevant to me. All shows are like that. One purpose of speculative fiction is to portray worlds or societies other than our shown and show problems and how to overcome them. It doesn't have to be on Earth to be relevant to me or my family.

Also, it bears repeating that Trek is primarily an entertainment franchise, that TOS started out as a Western style, action adventure show, with social commentary, since scifi can often get away with that. Being entertaining doesn't preclude being thought provoking, or vice versa.

 

[JWPlatt]

...esp with 2016 right around the corner.

That's interesting. What's the story with the rights? Is this a use them or lose them situation?

Edit: I misread "right" as "rights." Sorry. I suppose it is actually referencing the 50th anniversary.

 

[F. King Daniel]

According to Hollywood Para Mobius over in the ST Fans Facebook group, CBS have a no-compete clause with Paramount, meaning they cannot produce any non-Abramsverse TV Trek until Jan 1, 2015. Then Para claims they'll announce two new prime-universe series, although the details beyond that differ with each retelling.

It's in this BBS thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=257395&page=6

 

[BillJ]

According to Hollywood Para Mobius over in the ST Fans Facebook group, CBS have a no-compete clause with Paramount, meaning they cannot produce any non-Abramsverse TV Trek until Jan 1, 2015. Then Para claims they'll announce two new prime-universe series, although the details beyond that differ with each retelling.

It's in this BBS thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=257395&page=6

Depending on whose doing the telling it has been January 1st or January 31st.

If they did go back to the Prime universe, there is one project I would be interested in seeing: Star Trek: The Final Frontier. The aborted animated web series.

 

[BillJ]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect sometime after the new year the Enterprise Season Five group will find out they were mislead. That the person who says they work for CBS either never worked for them or did and were fired at some point.

Just so much that is coming out of that, that really makes no sense.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Yes, and it's still preferable. Good story-telling obeys the rules it sets up for itself. So I would have hopes that it would have to be more self-consistent than an alternate reality where those rules were abandoned for the specific purpose of anything goes. I didn't always like Berman & Braga either, but I always looked forward to the next Trek series or movie.

Been watching Star Trek for a really, really long time. What rules exactly have the Abrams films broken?

I'd like to know too.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

Two months ago, my answer would have been "probably."

Now it's "probably not" -- and that's saddening, but if there's even a kernel of truth to the notion of CBS making a new show, let alone two new shows, then dammit, that's OK.

 

[urbandefault]

My gut tells me that after this next movie, big screen Trek will go dormant for a while. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Paramount milked it to death from 1987-2005, and we're lucky we got this reboot.

I seriously doubt that CBS will spend the money to put a new Trek show on the flagship network. Les Moonves is on record as saying he isn't interested in Trek on tv. I don't see it fitting into the CBS primetime lineup of procedurals and sitcoms and reality shows.

As it is, Star Trek is a cash cow for CBS and they don't have to spend a dime to rake in the proceeds from licensing. It is literally a golden goose ... or figuratively, if you're that guy. Cash cow, golden goose, mixing metaphors, whatever.

If there were to be a new series, it would probably be on a CBS owned cable channel with limited seasons, and probably in the same vein as the Abrams films. But I'm not holding my breath.