Forbes article: ‘Snake Eyes’ Box Office Failure Is Terrible News For ‘Star Trek’

Forbes has yet another Scott Mendelson piece up called "‘Snake Eyes’ Box Office Failure Is Terrible News For ‘Star Trek’".

I am posting the link here for all to read and this thread for any comments, insights, etc.

I agree with him on the "Was anyone really asking for a Snake Eyes/G.I. Joe prequel film?" I mean, the first two films couldn't get their act together. And Mendelson seems cynical of the Star Trek franchise as a whole. And he is right, the scheduling will be tight to get a new film in the franchise out among all the other offerings.

Of course, don't get me started on how badly Paramount/Viacom botched the 50th anniversary, especially compared to the BBC's work on the Doctor Who 50th...

Feel free to move this to the Future of Trek forum. It could go in either one.

 

While he makes valid points, I do wonder what Star Trek ever did to this guy to make him shit on it at every opportunity. Every article this guy writes about Star Trek reads like a guy spitefully recalling an ex.

 

I disagree. Paramount may spend even little bit more money on Star Trek seeing that it's doing supposedly well on TV with four or five series more to come they're thinking it's a bit of a Renaissance.
But I hope they do understand that they can't go spend 200 plus million in the movie because it's not a 500 + box office. keep it under a hundred maybe a hundred twenty million and make a decent profit sell more merchandise and then be a good entry.
Korea done space sweepers for dirt cheap and was great efx. Can still be a great action vfx movie for non mcu money.

 

Who cares? Honestly, there is not a single film that I have "asked for" that I felt was more enjoyable than what was put out. Certainly my favorite films are unasked for ones. I never understand this question.

On to Star Trek. Clearly there is a demand for Star Trek content right now so Paramout/Viacom would be stupid to not work to put out some sort of film. The scheduling might be tight, but that's the nature of the business. I'd rather them try it out when there is demonstrated interest in Star Trek then hem and haw about it.

 

Is there a demand for a Kelvin Timeline movie? Judging from the last movie that demand is not huge.
What budget would be justified by the demand?

Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana can demand top salaries. I couldn't find numbers, but Chris Hemsworth gets $15M per movie, I would guess that Pine and Saldana could demand something on that level. Quinto, Urban, and Pegg are a level lower, but it is still substantial.
You have to squeeze the salaries into the budget and then you have to actually make the movie.

In the article, Scott Mendelson argues that the next Star Trek movie should have a budget like Snake Eyes (88M).
Is it possible to make a Star Trek movie with extensive VFX with these actors with that budget?

Then there is the scheduling. Zoe Saldana is booked for Avatar 2 (2022) and Avatar 3 (2024).

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...at-box-office-with-13m-debut/?sh=749dfc9a7aa8

Maybe Scott Mendelson doesn't like NuTrek. Maybe he thinks it's an example of a failed franchise?

 

Wasn't Star Trek II done on the cheap after how expensive The Motion Picture ended up being? No whether something like that could be done now, I don't know.

 

I don't know but they had a nice draw when starting out. So, there is no need to use Pine or Saldana if they can work within a smaller budget and build upon the Kelvin Universe.

I think there is a demand for variety.

 

The STTMP budget was so high because Paramount did some creative accounting and included the pre-production budget of Phase II in it.
Because that was not the case for Star Trek II and Paramount reused sets and models, the budget for Star Trek II was relatively low.

 

Who gives a fuck what Forbes has to say about Star Trek's future? Also who gives a fuck what Forbes has to say on any subject?

 

I care very little what Forbes says on Star Trek. I think there is a ton of false equivalency and wishing for failure.

 

Maybe people who want to read about the state of the Star Trek franchise from a different perspective?
Maybe people who want to read about the economic reality of the movie business and audience demands, especially now that Paramount has created a dud with a franchise movie and they don't want to repeat that and rethink their approach to Star Trek?

 

Paramount isn't doing to well on there releases.. No wonder the vultures are circling to buy it.

 

Personally, I think the handling of Star Trek has been botched ever since ST09 came out. ST09 was a surprise hit and the future for Trek looked so bright, then they did nothing with it until 2013 and whilst STID did well, they needed it to have been smashed out faster to properly capitalise.

It's the botched release of TNG on blu-ray that really gets me. They had this magnificent movie come out - and on the same shelves as ST09, they stuck Season 1 of TNG - that sold really well. Why in Gods name didn't they smash out the 'feature length episodes' - you know, the good ones to cross sell with ST09. It's no wonder the following seasons sold poorly.

Then Beyond came out and was a rushed mess of a film. The 50th came and went with little fanfare.

I've no real idea of how well DISCO, PICARD or the other shows are really doing.The only solid figures are very disappointing (where it has been aired on TV) - but I guess the shows are doing very well 'cause they keep making them.

 

Gi Joe and Star Trek. now theres a pairing! so much in common! - Paramount, Rachel Nichols, came out the same years 2009/13...and er..thats about it

 

Yeah, as much as I think Paramount completely dropped the ball with ST 09 and the follow up for the sequels, I think that GI JOE has been even worse in the handling. So, any comparisons right now is surface level at best.

Which is fine, because predicting the negative outcome of the Star Trek franchise has been extremely surface level, largely owing to individual dissatisfaction with current output.

 

Forbes is a business magazine. The authors from the entertainment section look at movies mainly from a business perspective, how well they do in the marketplace.
They don't care about the artistic value, story, plot holes, or canon. More importantly, they are not entrenched in Anti/Pro-NuTrek debates.
I always find it interesting to get an outside perspective onto the Star Trek franchise from professional writers from business magazines or entertainment industry trade publications and not from sites that have "Trek" in their name or are Geek news sites. I think it's always a good idea to insert outside perspectives into an ongoing discussion.

Maybe his perspective on the Star Trek franchise, and particularly on Star Trek movies, has not changed in the last years because the economic perspective for a new Star Trek movie hasn't changed and is not good.
It's a good idea to remind Star Trek fans of that when they discuss new movies and get overexcited. Or at least remind them that there is an outside perspective of the Star Trek franchise that is not as rosy as Star Trek fans think it is.

 

That was an interesting opening weekend, with the top performing movies only earning something in the neighborhood of $14 to $16 million, IIRC. Snake Eyes was second at the box office, even with those dismal figures.

Kor