Honestly, if that were the case; they would have stopped after STID. The fact is the recent films are doing VERY well for the studio.
Will there be a Star Trek IV?
- Thread starter AdmiralBruno
- Start date
Honestly, if that were the case; they would have stopped after STID. The fact is the recent films are doing VERY well for the studio.
U a film generally needs to at least double its budget to make any sort of profit, so while these two movies have made some money, they have not made that much. Yes the budgets are higher which is why they get a better return on it, but that doesn't mean they are enormous blockbusters.
You do realize that tax rebates play a huge part in these films profitability? From what I've read, they're going to end up getting half the money they spent in Vancouver back in refunds. While they probably spent $200 million, they're going to end up getting 35-40% percent of it back in tax incentives. So the $200 million dollar film will end up costing somewhere around $135 million when all is said and done.
Then there is home video sales (discs, streaming) that also represents a chuck of cash. Star Trek Into Darkness did another $56,000,000 in Blu-ray sales alone. Then there is DVD, streaming and TV deals. There's a lot of money that isn't accounted for in box office totals.
http://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart
The Star Trek movies are making plenty of money, or else Paramount and their partners wouldn't be spending another $200 million to make Beyond.
The only thing we know about movie financing is that we don't know jack shit.
Something to chew on about Hollywood accounting...
As of September 14, 2011, Return of the Jedi still hadn't turned a profit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, did $612,000,000 in business yet lost $167 million.
As of September 14, 2011, Return of the Jedi still hadn't turned a profit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, did $612,000,000 in business yet lost $167 million.
Last edited:
Yes, they're doing well, but Pegg has said himself that they want to make more.
If you're spending $150-200 million on your films in 2016, that means you want to make a lot more than just the double of its supposed budget.
Hollywood always wants to make more. After all, Return of the Jedi still hasn't made any profit.
I think that they'll do another film. Pine and Quinto have had their contracts extended to include an additional film after Beyond.
Maybe we'll see the crew broken up? Maybe Kirk is in command of the Enterprise-A and Spock is off in command of the Intrepid or some other vessel?
Maybe we'll see the crew broken up? Maybe Kirk is in command of the Enterprise-A and Spock is off in command of the Intrepid or some other vessel?
Hollywood economics isn't just about the cost of a film compared to the number of butts in seats. It's about promoting a brand and consumer confidence, which, in turn, bolsters CBS and Paramount fiscal strength and stability. Shareholders are happy.
Right now, the Star Trek brand is at an all-time high. It's finally push through the general audience barrier. There's a highly anticipated film with a song from one of the most popular recording artists in the world attached to it, and there's a new series on the horizon from one of the most respected TV writer-producers in Hollywood. CBS is happy.
Comparatively, the TNG films may have been individually "profitable," but the Star Trek brand had grown stale and consumer confidence cold and lethargic.
The only way there isn't a fourth film is if Beyond totally bombs. And even then, it's likely they may try a total overhaul and tent-pole again in four or five years.
And, if Beyond is really successful, CBS might try to convince Paramount to go the other direction and start a second film series parallel to the current one--the mythical Kevin Timeline-based TNG reboot would be the obvious choice. And, no, I'm not kidding.
Right now, the Star Trek brand is at an all-time high. It's finally push through the general audience barrier. There's a highly anticipated film with a song from one of the most popular recording artists in the world attached to it, and there's a new series on the horizon from one of the most respected TV writer-producers in Hollywood. CBS is happy.
Comparatively, the TNG films may have been individually "profitable," but the Star Trek brand had grown stale and consumer confidence cold and lethargic.
The only way there isn't a fourth film is if Beyond totally bombs. And even then, it's likely they may try a total overhaul and tent-pole again in four or five years.
And, if Beyond is really successful, CBS might try to convince Paramount to go the other direction and start a second film series parallel to the current one--the mythical Kevin Timeline-based TNG reboot would be the obvious choice. And, no, I'm not kidding.
I thought it was already confirmed, that there will be a 4th movie.
http://trekmovie.com/2016/04/30/is-paramount-gearing-up-for-star-trek-4/
http://trekmovie.com/2015/06/26/wit...star-trek-4-appears-to-be-leaving-space-dock/
They could still cancel those plans of course, if Beyond flops, but I doubt it will.
http://trekmovie.com/2016/04/30/is-paramount-gearing-up-for-star-trek-4/
http://trekmovie.com/2015/06/26/wit...star-trek-4-appears-to-be-leaving-space-dock/
They could still cancel those plans of course, if Beyond flops, but I doubt it will.
Last edited:
Well that's a little different. That's just a classic case of Hollywood accounting where if they say didn't make a profit, they don't have to pay actors and advertisers more money.Hollywood always wants to make more. After all, Return of the Jedi still hasn't made any profit.
I'm just talking about whether Paramount would be wanting to make the same amount as other large-budget summer blockbusters or just wanting to surpass older Trek films.
My rule of common sense is: If they keep making them, they're making enough money to justify it.
I couldn't agree more. I remember 1986 and the buzz surrounding Star Trek IV and miss that time.
In measurement of success, i'm hoping that this film will be exactly like what Star Trek IV was in 1986. The big hurrah movie that leads us into a renaissance of Star Trek, and it's return to the small screen.
Only I really really hope season 1 of Trek 17 is better than Season 1 of TNG.
Only I really really hope season 1 of Trek 17 is better than Season 1 of TNG.
Anything is possible but given the extremely low quaility of TV over the past decade and the fact that season 1 of TNG was so good, I wouldn't count on it.In measurement of success, i'm hoping that this film will be exactly like what Star Trek IV was in 1986. The big hurrah movie that leads us into a renaissance of Star Trek, and it's return to the small screen.
Only I really really hope season 1 of Trek 17 is better than Season 1 of TNG.
$150m... less than STID actually.. plus the leads got a big pay hike too.
the movies make $ but this is not SW level profits
Well fucking "duh"! There's a reason Disney paid for $4 billion dollars for the franchise, because there aren't too many profit machines like it around.
The next question should be, "Should there be an 'expanded' franchise, and, if so, in what manner?" I say, alternate between the Kirk Era and the Picard Era, so that there would be one 'Trek film every year. I would also consider having an alternate production team do the Picard Era, so as to shake things up creatively. Hopefully, this would allow for competition between teams. And if there was a Picard Era, which includes all of TNG, DS9 & VOY, how should that era be depicted? Problem with this part would be locking the direction of the Kirk Era. Still, I would want to see how far advanced the Picard Era would be, in terms of look and philosophy (maybe something similar to the proposed STAR TREK: UNCHARTED story treatment? In terms of casting, while I would love to see Tom Hardy reprise his role as Picard, I think he's too beefy, and his roles tend to be pugilistic of late, though, maybe in the Kelvin Timeline, there is a reason for it. Then again, that would take away a bit from the Riker character as "the action guy". Maybe someone like Christopher Eccleston would do? Oh, and someone like Troi would definitely need to be updated, from "Counselor" to someone who is a political officer who works for the Federation Diplomatic Corps that is assigned to the Enterprise in order to keep Picard in line, while outside of Federation territory? Well, I rambled long enough...
Similar threads
