CBS and Paramount officially back together
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
This is true! We never DID see the interior of the new Enterprise-A after all.
I guess it means we're gonna see thinly disguised USS Discovery sets standing in for the Kelvinprise 1701-A, or whatever direction they choose to go in for the next film. It's Star Trek V and VI all over again!
An alien lair will in fact be Picard's house redecorated :P
Agree with the comment on their being successful, but in point of fact, Pine was already under a contract with them for film #4. They wanted to renegotiate this at a lower salary supposedly because of Beyond's performance. Pine rightly refused. If they had just held up their contract with him things would've gone forward as far as he was concerned. As far as Hemsworth, who knows the story there, but I imagine he was asking for a large sum because of his MCU Thor. I'm not sure why they bothered, he has always struck me as a very much mediocre actor. They could've gone with someone else.
According to Box Office Mojo:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
Star Trek (2009) made $385 million worldwide on a $150 million budget.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
Into Darkness made $467 million on a $190 million budget.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm
Beyond made $343 million on a $185 million budget.
You can decide what adverb to put before "successful." They all made money, but they didn't make Avengers money.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
Star Trek (2009) made $385 million worldwide on a $150 million budget.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
Into Darkness made $467 million on a $190 million budget.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm
Beyond made $343 million on a $185 million budget.
You can decide what adverb to put before "successful." They all made money, but they didn't make Avengers money.
So? Most movies don’t make Avengers money. If that’s your bar for “successful,” then 99.9% of all movies ever made were total flops.
The Abrams films were the most successful Star Trek movies ever made. And not just because of the money.
I know Hollywood studios want to make all the money but the Avengers/MCU bar is absurdly high. It's like declaring yourself out of shape because you are not built like Dwayne Johnson. Not everyone is The Rock.
It's widely acknowledged that a film with that kind of budget needs to take in approximately 2-3 times the budget to be considered successful. The budget generally doesn't include advertising costs, so the rule of thumb is to double the budget to get the break even point.
Yeah, 2-3 times. Depends on the film. Beyond didn't seem to get a huge marketing push, but that Rihanna song and video won't have been cheap.
I realized that my post was repetitive, that you already said two to three times, and deleted it. Oh well.
Or ST:TMP and the Next Generation TV series. Set and prop reuse is nothing new; they did it for EVERY Trek incarnation (Including TOS).I guess it means we're gonna see thinly disguised USS Discovery sets standing in for the Kelvinprise 1701-A, or whatever direction they choose to go in for the next film. It's Star Trek V and VI all over again!
Beyond really needed to reach that elusive 500m mark (500 for the 50th) but fell below even ST09 ww which at the time was hampered overseas by being a 'star-trek' movie (plus Beyond did approx 100m less than ST09 domestic!) . it could have done 500 but not with that story/villain etc - it was too inconsequential (and the initial trailer looked too silly) - it needed an iconic villain like the Klingons or the Borg plus maybe abit of timetravel/iconic characters returning as something of a celebration for the anniversary (obviously shatner but maybe not just him..i.e stewart, or spiner, or dorn etc - look how 7of9 & Data have been received in the Picard trailer - everyone loves it). just stuff to get the fans and even the non fans (who vaguely remembered enjoying the previous 2 so many years ago) excited and pumped up to see the movie - esp as everyone was losing their minds over Star Wars being back.
they had from 2013 to come up with something that would delve into Trek history for a celebratory event to mark the 50th (like DrWho did) and they completely zero zero zero..destruct.. zero'd it
but anyway hopefully its all going to turn out ok and we'll get what we should've got in 2016 with Picard and (hopefully) the Tarantino film
they had from 2013 to come up with something that would delve into Trek history for a celebratory event to mark the 50th (like DrWho did) and they completely zero zero zero..destruct.. zero'd it
but anyway hopefully its all going to turn out ok and we'll get what we should've got in 2016 with Picard and (hopefully) the Tarantino film
Last edited:
Klingons, Borg, Time Travel AND Shatner (plus maybe stewart, spiner or dorn)? That would have been the most obvious fanwanky bs movie ever released and no one from the general audience would have paid a single cent to see it.
Beyond could've been tweaked in various ways, but the best way to ensure it made more money would've been to:
A) Not wait so long between 09 and ID and ID and Beyond - audiences don't have that long of an attention span.
and B) Market it better.
And it still might not have made 500m because Star Trek has just never been THAT popular. One could just as easily argue that ID got a boost from Cumberbatch more than it did from people deciding they really liked Star Trek after 09.
(Also, secret option C: massively reduce the budget. That's really the only truly dependable way to ensure a Star Trek movie is profitable.)
Beyond could've been tweaked in various ways, but the best way to ensure it made more money would've been to:
A) Not wait so long between 09 and ID and ID and Beyond - audiences don't have that long of an attention span.
and B) Market it better.
And it still might not have made 500m because Star Trek has just never been THAT popular. One could just as easily argue that ID got a boost from Cumberbatch more than it did from people deciding they really liked Star Trek after 09.
(Also, secret option C: massively reduce the budget. That's really the only truly dependable way to ensure a Star Trek movie is profitable.)
Maybe.. but doing none of that didn't do too well either
Last edited:
I don't love it.
Mostly it means the continued march towards corporate consolidation into one vast monopoly that controls all levels of society is one step closer.
Eventually, we'll all owe rent money to ViaFace-Disney Micro-Googple for breathing their patented oxygen supply.
Oh, yeah, I guess they'll start making new Star Trek movies at some point.
Eventually, we'll all owe rent money to ViaFace-Disney Micro-Googple for breathing their patented oxygen supply.
Oh, yeah, I guess they'll start making new Star Trek movies at some point.
Maybe.. but doing none of that didn't do too well either
The Voyage Home outperformed Wrath of Khan by quite a bit (Also First Contact over Generations). Building the movies around 'what people know' is not a magic recipe for Trek box office success. And the idea that anyone in the general audience would've still taken Shatner seriously as Captain Kirk like a decade after he swerved his entire career towards being all about how old he is is just delusional.
I guess it means we're gonna see thinly disguised USS Discovery sets standing in for the Kelvinprise 1701-A, or whatever direction they choose to go in for the next film. It's Star Trek V and VI all over again!
When I saw the DSC Enterprise I was slightly miffed it wasn't Pien's Enterprise
So I say DO IT!
Not gonna lie, I think Jeri Ryan's reception on The Picard Show is gonna be make or break for Voyager in HD. People are gonna want to revisit her backstory.
