Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag

[Mudd]

I think the idea that Praramount doesn't do audience research or doesn't know what fans say they want is just the cutest thing.

Anyone got a link, BTW, to any reliable source suggesting that CBS would consider selling Trek? Midnight's Edge or Doug Fitz/Leslie Owen loonies don't count.

 

[mos6507]

The TOS movies jumpstarted TNG and the first movie following the debut of TNG was Trek V. Even if Trek V had been a good movie, I distinctly remember mindshare doing a hard shift from the movies to TV. The importance of a movie with the TOS cast coming out every 2-3 years was just no longer there anymore.

With CBS now on the cusp of launching a whole slew of Trek on TV, the sense of anticipation over a Trek film (which up until now has been way too long between sequels) is gonna be at an all-time low, despite the use of A-list actors.

And really, the only thing that really got media attention was the Tarantino film. The prospect of Trek 4 with Pine/Hemsworth is not really setting the world on fire.

I think the wise thing to do would be to retire Kelvin-trek and fast-track the Tarantino project with a different cast.

Instead I am sensing an almost sense of desperation on Paramount's part to make Trek 4 happen, maybe because they know Tarantino is tied up with his current movie and they can't wait that long for him. That sort of sausage-factory-like corporate attitude doesn't bode well for the quality of this film. You should do it because it's a story that needs to be told. The Tarantino project feels more like that sort of thing.

 

[TrickyDickie]

What kind of research do they do? It's a fair question.

Offering....what? Reassurance? To the most rabid "prime" 'fan'atics who have bitched and moaned on social media.

The average viewer wants to be entertained by a good story. They don't know / care about "prime". They make up the largest percentage of the audience, not the foaming-at-the-mouth primer fans.

Beyond underperformed. Theaters are a larger venue than streaming, at the moment.

Why did it underperform? Because viewers were not engaged by the story.

Ergo, the producers were out of touch with what kind of stories viewers want to see.

Which suggests that they didn't do much, if any research but simply went ahead and did what they wanted to do.

Now they have to deal with the consequences.

If they don't do some meaningful homework, they could just as easily have a greater failure with film 4.

The story about Kirk and his dad may or may not resonate, depending on how it's done, but if it's the focus of the plot rather than a story element that moves the plot along, it could be a disaster in the making at the box office.

 

[Terok Nor]

They squandered what they built up in Star Trek 2009. It should never have been allowed to take 4 years for a sequel. Then the sequel polarised the entire fan base which didn't help matters.

Ideally there should have been a movie in 2011 to strike while the iron was hot. 4 years later it was yesterday's news. I don't honestly believe they would ever make a truly awful low quality Kelvin movie so I don't buy that it took 4 years to get a good script. They let the momentum fade away and Into Darkness divided the fan base when a sequel finally arrived.

Stupid.

 

[johnjm22]

Why did it underperform? Because viewers were not engaged by the story.

I don't think that's the case. All the feedback says viewers liked the film by a significant majority.

Well liked films can perform poorly at the box office. Box office results aren't necessarily a measure of how much people enjoy a movie.

 

[TrickyDickie]

I don't think that's the case. All the feedback says viewers liked the film by a significant majority.

Well liked films can perform poorly at the box office. Box office results aren't necessarily a measure of how much people enjoy a movie.

"Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale, down from the first two films' "A". "

If the story had been stronger, the movie would have been better suited to take on the competition in theaters at the time. The choice of release date itself was foolish, to begin with.

 

[mos6507]

Well liked films can perform poorly at the box office. Box office results aren't necessarily a measure of how much people enjoy a movie.

Franchise films ride on top of engagement. Engagement is the sense of investment in the fandom. While you can oversaturate a property (like Trek during the Berman era) you can also starve a property of product as well.

A good example of that is Avatar which has become effectively a fallow property by the sequels taking so long. Cameron needs to largely start over again building the hype cycle when the first sequel nears release. So a really wide sequel cadence risks losing your engagement before the next film appears.

The problem with Kelvin is that 2009 established it as a just-out-of-academy ensemble. We're now so far downstream that the actors have aged out of that demographic and the original fanbase that identified with it are also aging out. I mean, John Cho is already 46 for cryin' out loud. Chris Pine is almost 38.

If they wanted a series of films with impulsive youths hopping galaxies in an alternate history prior to prime-TOS they should have done them in quick succession but it makes no sense to have these actors keep portraying the roles into middle-age.

 

[johnjm22]

If the story had been stronger, the movie would have been better suited to take on the competition in theaters at the time. The choice of release date itself was foolish, to begin with.

Had the movie been better, I doubt there would have been a significant increase in box office results. Maybe slightly.

I think box office results for a franchise film are more a measure of how much people are interested in the brand. There's lots of disliked movies with good box office results.

I blame marketing for STB's box office performance more than the film itself. I also think people were burned out after STiD.

 

[gottacook]

All this talk of what sort of new Star Trek movie might succeed creatively, commercially, etc., is a little premature. Again and again: Paramount is not on solid ground. There is real near-term uncertainty over where CBS, Viacom, and Paramount might end up, separately and/or in combination. It's difficult to believe (at least for me) that well-considered decisions can be made about Star Trek or any other Paramount property under such circumstances. (Of course, Mission: Impossible 6 is a big current success, but the related decisions were taken years ago.)

This story is a good summary of the situation as of 2 months ago, before the recent news about Moonves' alleged behavior:

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/shari-redstone-weighs-options-merge-cbs-viacom-sell-go-shopping-1117498

Also, check out this quite recent opinion piece for some of the variables:

www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-09/viacom-viab-earnings-profit-is-good-a-merger-would-be-better

 

[johnjm22]

Franchise films ride on top of engagement. Engagement is the sense of investment in the fandom. While you can oversaturate a property (like Trek during the Berman era) you can also starve a property of product as well.

A good example of that is Avatar which has become effectively a fallow property by the sequels taking so long. Cameron needs to largely start over again building the hype cycle when the first sequel nears release. So a really wide sequel cadence risks losing your engagement before the next film appears.

The problem with Kelvin is that 2009 established it as a just-out-of-academy ensemble. We're now so far downstream that the actors have aged out of that demographic and the original fanbase that identified with it are also aging out. I mean, John Cho is already 46 for cryin' out loud. Chris Pine is almost 38.

If they wanted a series of films with impulsive youths hopping galaxies in an alternate history prior to prime-TOS they should have done them in quick succession but it makes no sense to have these actors keep portraying the roles into middle-age.

I think another word for 'engagement' in the context you're using it could be 'buzz'. There wasn't much buzz for STB.

What gives a franchise buzz is a fickle thing. It's hard to figure out. Everyone around here has a theory. For every argument there's a counter. I could tell you that starving a property generates buzz. Making us wait a long time for the The Phantom Menace and The Force Awakens helped build up excitement for them.

Personally, I think having Tarantino direct a Trek film could generate buzz that the Kelvinverse films are now lacking.

On a side note, I like that the cast is older now. It makes them more believable as senior bridge officers.

 

[Longinus]

I don't particularly care for this iteration of the franchise, and I personally would not mind if there was no fourth instalment, but considering that Trek is gaining momentum, it would be foolish for Paramount to blow this.

They obviously need Pine, but if this causes them to not make Kirk meets his dad time travel story, that would probably be for the better. Sounds like pretty terrible story idea. The again, the first two films had utterly terrible stories too, and people seemed to love them anyway, so what do I know.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

..John Cho is 46?! Whoa!!

 

[Smellmet]

I did not know that. I thought he was in his mid to late 30s. I suppose American Pie was nearly 20 years ago.

 

[ITDUDE]

Hey I am all for ST4, the more the merrier. But I also hate greedy corporations. Paramount definitely needs Star Trek more than Pine needs to take a discounted role. I think he is calling their bluff. They will cave, they have no choice. Star Trek without Kirk will not work.

 

[F. King Daniel]

..John Cho is 46?! Whoa!!

I'm pretty sure there's a portrait in his attic which ages.

 

[johnjm22]

Yeah those damn greedy corporations. We don't want struggling Paramount pictures making a profit.

 

[ITDUDE]

Yeah those damn greedy corporations. We don't want struggling Paramount pictures making a profit.

If they can’t afford to pay they should cancel the movie. Pine doesn’t need to offer them a discount. I am 100% with Pine on this. Especially since rest of cast signed up for previously agreed amounts. It’s only for Pine they are saying is too expensive. Pfft, I have no pity for a corporations like that. If they canceled the movie because it’s too expensive and they won’t make a profit, I would atleast respect that decision. By trying to reneg on a deal, no respect for them.

 

[mos6507]

I did not know that. I thought he was in his mid to late 30s. I suppose American Pie was nearly 20 years ago.

Yep. Maybe it's time to make a Captin Sulu series, but with Cho instead of Takei.

 

[Longinus]

Hey I am all for ST4, the more the merrier. But I also hate greedy corporations. Paramount definitely needs Star Trek more than Pine needs to take a discounted role. I think he is calling their bluff. They will cave, they have no choice. Star Trek without Kirk will not work.

You're most likely right.

Then again, it this forced them to shuffle the format, it would finally allow Kelvin Trek to do something new and interesting instead of redoing old things badly. Captain Uhura, First Officer Sulu, Bones can stay too, rest of the crew is new, a new five year mission.

 

[BillJ]

All this talk of what sort of new Star Trek movie might succeed creatively, commercially, etc., is a little premature. Again and again: Paramount is not on solid ground. There is real near-term uncertainty over where CBS, Viacom, and Paramount might end up, separately and/or in combination. It's difficult to believe (at least for me) that well-considered decisions can be made about Star Trek or any other Paramount property under such circumstances. (Of course, Mission: Impossible 6 is a big current success, but the related decisions were taken years ago.)

Paramount isn't going to quit doing business while everything at National Amusements is worked out.

Pine will end up in Star Trek 4. I really don't care about Hemsworth.