BREAKING: Paramount Sets Top Secret Star Trek Movie For Summer 2023; To Be Produced By J.J. Abrams

[Tomalak]

you should tell these poor schmucks that they "Don't understand Hollywood. JJ. Does"
https://www.20thcenturystudios.com/movies/death-on-the-nile

and Star Trek is not a B-level franchise, whatever that means.

To be fair, Death on the Nile is aimed at a completely different market to the one Paramount is pitching these Star Trek films at.

But if you could make a Trek film on a $90 million budget, you'd probably make money.

But what's wrong with a sci-fi mystery? JJ Abrams made his name as the "mystery box" guy.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

you should tell these poor schmucks that they "Don't understand Hollywood. JJ. Does"
https://www.20thcenturystudios.com/movies/death-on-the-nile

and Star Trek is not a B-level franchise, whatever that means.

Of course they understand Hollywood in the same way JJ does. Know your audience, and know how to open their wallets. A Hercule Poirot murder-mystery is going to have a much wider appeal than a Star Trek (or any sci fi) murder-mystery. People going to sci-fi films want action. Maybe not YOU, but the large majority. Like it or not. The few sci-fi films I've seen where they "solve a mystery" with no other crisis or antagonist have been snoozers. Sure, 2001: A Space Odyssey was such a movie, and although it's a classic, it still puts me to sleep every time I watch it.

 

[XCV330]

Of course they understand Hollywood in the same way JJ does. Know your audience, and know how to open their wallets. A Hercule Poirot murder-mystery is going to have a much wider appeal than a Star Trek (or any sci fi) murder-mystery. People going to sci-fi films want action. Maybe not YOU, but the large majority. Like it or not. The few sci-fi films I've seen where they "solve a mystery" with no other crisis or antagonist have been snoozers. Sure, 2001: A Space Odyssey was such a movie, and although it's a classic, it still puts me to sleep every time I watch it.

You're subjective review of 2001 is not really germain to this. 2001 made money, and spawned a successful sequel which itself was sci-fi mystery that made money. Just some recent sci-fi mystery movies that come to mind from the last 20 years or so that nearly doubled their budget in box office returns: Moon (2009), Arrival, Minority Report. There are others.

So whether there are more Edwardian Mystery fans than Trek viewers (I suspect many of them are one and the same), does not really matter. Mysteries sell. Sci-fi mysteries sell. JJ does not get outside his box very often but he knows how to hire directors that do. It's why Beyond worked so well as a movie. I maintain if Beyond had been marketed it would have had viewers.

But again, calling a franchise that's had and 13 films and 11-12 individual television series (depending on how you count Short Treks) B list is stretching it. Just my opinion.

 

[dupersuper]

2009 and Beyond are the best Trek movies since FC.

A very low bar given the three other movies we got since FC, but agreed.

 

[gweeps]

I'll watch a fourth movie sometime. Not excited.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I still would like to see some passing of the torch or a joint venture with DISCO, maybe the Enterprise could accidently journey to the 32 century or together into a new universe. I'm looking forward to it; I would like to have more Spock in the story.

I'll watch a fourth movie sometime. Not excited.

Not excited now but as soon as you see that trailer your feelings may change.

 

[plynch]

They might be smarter to make a low budget one and make profit than gamble on a huge budget and lose. Harve Bennett for the win?

 

[ChristopherPike]

Will the multiverse trend have burnt itself in a year's time, or could we be in for a Crisis on Infinite Treks film?

 

[Galaxy]

Of course they understand Hollywood in the same way JJ does. Know your audience, and know how to open their wallets.

Beyond was a flop so one can question if they understand their market.

 

[cooleddie74]

I wouldn't call it a "flop" but it was the least-successful of the three Kelvin Timeline films at the box office.

 

[Falconer]

Which of course means Star Trek fans liked it the best of the three.

I don’t understand how it had and a $185 million budget and a box office gross of $343.5 million, and yet according to analysts it still did not break even, but there is a lot I don’t understand.

 

[cooleddie74]

Usually a movie has to gross at least twice its production budget in order to break even so it probably needed a bare minimum gross of $370 million to break even and show any profit for the studio.

 

[Tomalak]

I think it’s generally assumed to be more like three times the budget to make a decent profit these days.

No Time To Die grossed nearly $800m but there was a lot of talk that it would still lose money, which is insane. It didn’t help that the film was postponed so much due to COVID, so the marketing budget ballooned.

 

[johnjm22]

I think it’s generally assumed to be more like three times the budget to make a decent profit these days.

No Time To Die grossed nearly $800m but there was a lot of talk that it would still lose money, which is insane. It didn’t help that the film was postponed so much due to COVID, so the marketing budget ballooned.

Then they're gonna have to figure out a way to make an ST movie for $120M.

I assume the only way to do this is to back off significantly on FX, action, and expensive guest stars. Even then it will still be hard.

Arrival cost 47M. Just sayin...

 

[Tomalak]

Then they're gonna have to figure out a way to make an ST movie for $120M.

I assume the only way to do this is to back off significantly on FX, action, and expensive guest stars. Even then it will still be hard.

Arrival cost 47M. Just sayin...

Yes, that's exactly it.

Star Trek is never going to give blockbuster box office returns, so $200m budgets make no sense. And that was even before the Covid hit to cinema attendance.

If they insist on making another film it's going to have to be on a much more modest budget. The cast is probably going to be the biggest outlay. Perhaps they can use the TV sets and assets where possible.

It can be done, but JJ Abrams probably isn't the producer to do it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I don't think making a cheap Star Trek film is an option they're willing to consider at this point. Cheaper maybe, but not considerably so. Unless they go direct to streaming with it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What if they did an anomaly/bottle show movie akin to The Cloverfied Paradox? Weird shit in space, which is kinda what they're meant to be doing anyway.

On the Strange New Worlds sets. Cheap as chips.

 

[David cgc]

A very low bar given the three other movies we got since FC, but agreed.

I was mildly staggered walking out of seeing Beyond the first time when I realized that that had been the best Star Trek movie in twenty years, and that wasn't a hard call. And I hate ranking things!

 

[Ovation]

I don’t understand how it had and a $185 million budget and a box office gross of $343.5 million, and yet according to analysts it still did not break even

A big chunk of the production cost came from the aborted attempt at Orci’s version of the third film—this kind of accounting happens in Hollywood frequently and it likely made the difference between a moderate profit and a loss. It could have done better (though I find it the weakest of the three Kelvinverse movies in any case) with an improved marketing campaign but I don’t think it had mega-blockbuster potential.

 

[XCV330]

What if they did an anomaly/bottle show movie akin to The Cloverfied Paradox? Weird shit in space, which is kinda what they're meant to be doing anyway.

On the Strange New Worlds sets. Cheap as chips.

reusing at least some of the SNW properties does make a lot of sense. saves a lot of time and money. Alsod if it gets called out in the media, those who like the movie but did not know about the streaming shows might look it up.