Can the Trek franchise afford a JJ movie to bomb?

[ConRefit79]

Can the Trek franchise afford a JJ movie to bomb? For many years, I thought Paramount was too cheap when it came to investing in Trek Pictures. By all accounts, they invested huge sums in Star Trek 2009. I'm pretty sure they got a return on that investment. I wonder if the Trek franchise survive if they invest that kind of money and it bombs like Nemesis or ST5?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nothing lasts forever. It it bombs, it bombs and the big-budget film franchise is no more

We could still end up with a new TV series. Those sets, props and outfits weren't cheap - note how TMP sets and props (and TWoK uniforms) were used during the movies and all of TNG.

Even if TV/film Trek dies and stays dead for a while (everything once-profitable is recyled eventually), they'll still make books and comics continuing the Star Trekkers' adventures until they stop selling, and fan films of varying quality will crop up until the end of the universe.

 

[MANT!]

Trek has died before and made comebacks...

from 1974 to 1979..the only new Trek was novels,games(including Video games) and comic books..and fan made films..some of which survive today..

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvd9B2iMmfc[/yt]





From 2004 to 2009..Trek Novels, Games (including video games) and fan made films ..

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn2ynWESkw0[/yt]




Star Trek will survive..hell Flash Gordon has survived far longer..

 

[ConRefit79]

Guess by survive, I mean would Paramount risk making more movies or TV series if a big budget Trek film flops.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Guess by survive, I mean would Paramount risk making more movies or TV series if a big budget Trek film flops.

They already have - that's why we have "JJ Trek" to begin with. The last TNG were flops, and yet we still have a new form of Star Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Those certainly weren't big budget tentpole films in the sense that Abrams's movie is.

My guess is...yeah, but it'd take some time, again, to get a project off the ground. I think Trek has become a property that is considered durable and renewable in the same way as, for example, Superman. The last Superman film made money but disappointed the financial expectations of the studio, and so it's taken them a while to decide on an approach to reviving it. But they have and will.

 

[Set Harth]

I think they should start calling it T'rek.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Eventually it'll come back. It's kinda like Jason from the Friday the 13th movies. You think it's dead and then it rises again. It may take a few years but it will come back.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

In a short answer yes the Trek franchise could survive.

Will Orci & Kurtzman write a bad story that now JJ Abrams IS going to direct (as of yesterday's news)? No.
If the film has a budget of $150 million and is shot in stereoscopic 3-D it gives Paramount the addditional revenue and screens during the initial June-August first run at the cinema.
With Star Trek (2009) being such a worldwide success the 2012 sequel film will have the built-in audience.
What is considered a "bomb" at the box office is not on the JJ Abrams track record is really aside of this thread title topic.
If the film has disappointing box office returns "in the USA only" the worldwide box office and Blu-ray & DVD sales make up for it.
If the US & Worldwide box office, home video sales are terrible I think Paramount would probably wait longer to make that 3rd film the actors are optionally contracted for.
I do not think after Trek 2012 the circa 2014-2015 feature film sequel would not happen and instead Paramount/CBS Television launch into a TV series.
I still think it will be a 3rd film in the JJ-verse will be released even if that third film has a much reduced budget (around $75 million) and a different writing and directing team. Feature films have a faster ROI for Paramount it seems.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The good thing about aiming at the "general" audience, as STXI did, is that you hit a very wide area of the public. If the next movie is not as fast paced, action packed, and frenetically edited as STXI was, or if it has the least bit of substance or an actual plot that makes any sense, it will alienate half of the target audience the first film drew in. So basically, as long as they follow the same basic formula they used for STXI, the next film will be a resounding success. And if its not, then Star Trek may be on another hiatus for a few more years until someone reboots it again.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

... and we have another Zim Zing(tm)

 

[Devon]

... and we have another Zim Zing(tm)

And one to be skipped over as well.

The question on if the franchise can afford a financial failure rests with what Paramount's game plan is I think. If they are holding the new films to dictate what Trek's future will be, then they may not let a failure go as easily. I don't think it's a question that any of us can truly answer since we are not part of the boardroom meetings, but it's definitely a valid question.

 

[BillJ]

As long as shiny things go boom, the drooling masses will lap it up. See Transformers 2.

 

[thumbtack]

Thank God for the drooling masses.

 

[FarStrider]

In a short answer yes the Trek franchise could survive.

Will Orci & Kurtzman write a bad story that now JJ Abrams IS going to direct (as of yesterday's news)? No.
If the film has a budget of $150 million and is shot in stereoscopic 3-D it gives Paramount the addditional revenue and screens during the initial June-August first run at the cinema.
With Star Trek (2009) being such a worldwide success the 2012 sequel film will have the built-in audience.
What is considered a "bomb" at the box office is not on the JJ Abrams track record is really aside of this thread title topic.
If the film has disappointing box office returns "in the USA only" the worldwide box office and Blu-ray & DVD sales make up for it.
If the US & Worldwide box office, home video sales are terrible I think Paramount would probably wait longer to make that 3rd film the actors are optionally contracted for.
I do not think after Trek 2012 the circa 2014-2015 feature film sequel would not happen and instead Paramount/CBS Television launch into a TV series.
I still think it will be a 3rd film in the JJ-verse will be released even if that third film has a much reduced budget (around $75 million) and a different writing and directing team. Feature films have a faster ROI for Paramount it seems.

Um. . .where is the news that JJ is definitely going to direct from?


~FS

 

[Cmdr Straker]

As long as shiny things go boom, the drooling masses will lap it up. See Transformers 2.

This^^.

 

[Lord Garth]

I suppose technically it could afford a bomb but then there's nothing to stop Paramount from thinking 21st Century Star Trek was just a one-hit wonder. It would be a lot harder to convince Paramount to revive Star Trek for a third time (1979, 2009, and whenever the next time would be).

Now, if two Abrams era Star Trek movies do well, but the third one fails then that's different. Paramount won't think New Trek's early success was just a fluke and they'll simply look for a different direction to take ST XIV.

 

[Nerd unRage]

To go off of the above post a little bit, look at the Spider-man franchise. The first two movies were well done and financially successful. Then the studio decided to butt in and tweak Raimi's vision to sell more toys (because apparently they weren't move enough???) and we got the pile of crap that was Spider-man 3. Sure it made money because of the built-in audience from the first two, but it was not as well received criticially as the other 2 and is considered somewhat of a failure.

I'm very hopeful the second one will be even better than the reboot but the bigger question will be if the 3rd one contains along the same vein of awesomeness. It depends on how much an influence the studio tries to push into the script and shooting of the movie itself.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Thank God for the drooling masses.

Most of whom are easily as intelligent - not to mention a good deal less obsessive - than the folks trying to mock them.

 

[Jack Bauer]

As long as shiny things go boom, the drooling masses will lap it up. See Transformers 2.

The Dark Knight made gazillions of dollars yet it wasn't a mindless (though fun) movie like Transformers. People do like stuff that isn't all filled with explosions and those films can make money. There's more intelligent people out there than you seem to give credit for. There's many different factors why certain movies don't do a well as they should.