They're going to be operating under a reduced budget if anything.
I can't see them forking out more for a bigger name, and it's not like Trek has ever really attracted people who are bigger stars than that anyway.
Chris Pine Wants To Know What’s Going On With Next Star Trek Movie
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
They're going to be operating under a reduced budget if anything.
I can't see them forking out more for a bigger name, and it's not like Trek has ever really attracted people who are bigger stars than that anyway.
You're probably right. I'm just at a loss as to where the movie franchise goes from here to be honest.
I honestly think that it would only be a hindrance. I'm not that excited about the idea either (and it seems Chris Pine doesn't see the point either. Didn't he say he saw Kirk's arc about his father being done and closed?)
It would maybe make more sense if they bring his mother back, instead.
and I think even in star wars it was a risk as it's blatantly repetitive for their own franchise (and critics pointed that up), what saved them probably is mostly the fact that their new 'Luke' is a female character with her own secret and they have a more diverse trio than the original one. I think that (and the participation of the old cast) was more the draw than Kylo Ren's daddy issues (that you honestly know about only after watching the movie or reading the spoilers).
In a sense, in that franchise the repetitive plot could be perceived as nostalgia/homage to the original (a kind of 'history repeats itself' thing), but it's a pass you can only get for one movie.
this keep recycling stuff that almost every franchise of this genre does won't help making nowadays audience feel like trek has anything 'special' to offer and they thus should give a chance to it.
I would say I agree with pretty much everything in this post (particularly about Beyond being the best of the three) apart from the character development being realistic. Most are ok, but I don't buy the Kirk/Spock relationship at the point of Into Darkness.
In TOS, Spock's respect for Kirk seems to have developed from a point in which it was much more deserved than it was in the new timeline. I completely get who nuKirk is, and why, but feel that Spock should still be more at odds with him at this point.
I like Into Darkness quite a bit but probably its biggest flaw is that the Spock's reaction to Kirk's death is completely unearned, because after finding some common ground by the end of '09, they begin the movie being right back to not being able to stand each other (it's just that Spock isn't inclined to choke Kirk anymore). Just fixing that dynamic instead of having them spend three quarters of the movie antagonizing each other would solve its biggest problem.
Maybe Spock was only upset at Kirks passing as it denied him the chance to do it by own hand
Looks like we have another dry spell between us, like we did with Trek 09 and Into Darkness. As for the story, I'd be pleased with just about anything that doesn't involve saving whales. Reduced budget sounds fine, thought the 'angle' for this Star Trek incarnation seems to always include fever pitch thrill-ride narratives.
I wonder if Discovery would affect the time frame any future release? It seems like very sloppy business to have the same franchise splintered into separate ownership for TV and films like that but that's another story for another thread. I recall reading here in another thread that the storyline/characters wouldn't be crossing over so... should be no issues, right?
I wonder if Discovery would affect the time frame any future release? It seems like very sloppy business to have the same franchise splintered into separate ownership for TV and films like that but that's another story for another thread. I recall reading here in another thread that the storyline/characters wouldn't be crossing over so... should be no issues, right?
There are several reasons that this probably won't be the case.
1) There were rumors that STID did not satisfy the studio's desire for Marvel-like box office. The budget would be reduced it was said. It was..from $190 to $185 million,
2) Foreign investment. More likely than a reduced budget, will be a shared production budget, as with Beyond. In fact, Alibaba even paid for marketing and distribution in China.
3) The 3 films have made over $1.2 billion in BO alone. Over $1.5 billion with disc sales. This does not count all secondary revenue, but Paramount is literally swimming in Trek money. Beyond was their top moneymaker, a tentpole and continues a niche, but popular franchise.
RAMA
1) There were rumors that STID did not satisfy the studio's desire for Marvel-like box office. The budget would be reduced it was said. It was..from $190 to $185 million,
2) Foreign investment. More likely than a reduced budget, will be a shared production budget, as with Beyond. In fact, Alibaba even paid for marketing and distribution in China.
3) The 3 films have made over $1.2 billion in BO alone. Over $1.5 billion with disc sales. This does not count all secondary revenue, but Paramount is literally swimming in Trek money. Beyond was their top moneymaker, a tentpole and continues a niche, but popular franchise.
RAMA
Ummm... don't forget to subtract theater portions of that $1.2 billion from the swimming pool full of money. That brings the total down to about $600-$700 million.
You seem to leave a lot out of your "analysis", including the money Paramount and its partners pay out in financing (a lot). If they were "literally swimming in Trek money", their actors would have more of a clue as to what is going on nearly ten months after the launch of Beyond. You don't allow a cash cow to lie fallow. You don't take a chance on your actors being unavailable.
Yep. The films cost close to $600 million to make. Paramount has likely cleared about $650 million (including secondary revenue streams), before taxes.
It is clear why the incoming executives may be leery of making more films. If they had the profit margin @RAMA claims, there likely wouldn't have been a major shakeup at Paramount.
The 3 nuTrek films cost almost 530 million without marketing expenses. Marketing budgets vary drastically from 50%-150% of the final production spend. This budget is independent from what the studios spend on making of the movie, and therefore, is allocated separately. You can calculate for yourselves what a 50%-150% cost increase to the known production budget means.
Having said that, the name of the game is franchises, cinematic universes and sequels. Paramount has struggled to create other franchises (other than Mission Impossible and Star Trek) and failed miserably so far. (For instance, 2014's Jack Ryan, 2015's Terminator Genisys or this year's Ghost in the Shell, all Paramount bombs.) So Paramount really has no choice but to bite the bullet and go forward with Star Trek (1)4.
Having said that, the name of the game is franchises, cinematic universes and sequels. Paramount has struggled to create other franchises (other than Mission Impossible and Star Trek) and failed miserably so far. (For instance, 2014's Jack Ryan, 2015's Terminator Genisys or this year's Ghost in the Shell, all Paramount bombs.) So Paramount really has no choice but to bite the bullet and go forward with Star Trek (1)4.
Last edited:
Terminator Genysis made more money than Star Trek Beyond you know, nearly a hundred million dollars more in fact, and on a smaller budget... Just sayin'
Reports up until quite close to release had it at $150 million. It is possible the budget blew out, particularly as work was started then abandoned on an earlier script.
Also, while ID made less than its predecessor in the US, it made more worldwide. Beyond made less than either film in both respects.
Sure, but it's not a donation. They take a cut of the box office in return. It reduces the risk somewhat, but it also reduces the reward, and makes other markets more important. Beyond was down in almost all of those.
Beyond was their highest grossing film of 2016, but there's no way it was their most profitable.
Beyond made $158 million in the US and $343 million worldwide on a $185 million budget. As one example, Arrival made $100 million in the US and $198 million worldwide on a $47 million budget.
I know which I'd be happier with if I was at Paramount.
Disc sales may narrow the gap, since Trek fans love to complete their collection (though I haven't bought it yet in protest at the splitting of features), but that's a big gap to fill.
In short, they'd be extraordinarily bold to not reduce the budget on a series which already has a limited market and is showing diminishing returns - if they make another one at all.
I think the films have deteriorated steadily along with the box office. Beyond, with a new creative team, was the chance to turn it around and they delivered 'more of the same'.
Paramount will probably make number four, but I'd just as soon they didn't bother. My best hope is that they'll do it on a much reduced budget and produce something not reliant on fast action and spectacle...
Paramount will probably make number four, but I'd just as soon they didn't bother. My best hope is that they'll do it on a much reduced budget and produce something not reliant on fast action and spectacle...
STB would've killed for TGs mighty overseas numbersTerminator Genysis made more money than Star Trek Beyond you know, nearly a hundred million dollars more in fact, and on a smaller budget... Just sayin'
Terminator Genysis made more money than Star Trek Beyond you know, nearly a hundred million dollars more in fact, and on a smaller budget... Just sayin'
True. Genisys earned 440 million dollars worldwide on a 155 million dollars budget compared to Beyond's measly 343 million dollars worldwide box office with a 185 million dollars budget. However Paramount expected much much more and thought they would jumpstart a new franchise. They got hugely disappointed. And so will be anyone expecting to watch Terminator "Genisys 2".
True. It was an uneven, muddled film to say the least. How does Jai Courtney continue to find employment? The point stands though, Beyond has left the movie franchise in a very precarious position, but probably in slightly better shape than the Terminator franchise, granted.
All the points are accurate and still stand. I didn't count it but likely secondary revenue for ST09 alone is in the $700-800 million range. Besides, I said gross, not profit. Actual profit can only be estimated by us.
As I've pointed out as recently again as last week, Paramount announced ST4, reiterated their support for it recently then appointed a Scifi friendly ceo. The delay has much to do with studio instability, not Trek's success.
As I've pointed out as recently again as last week, Paramount announced ST4, reiterated their support for it recently then appointed a Scifi friendly ceo. The delay has much to do with studio instability, not Trek's success.
ST09's home video sales amounted to $199,143,833.
Source: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek#tab=summary
Where is the other 500-600 million coming from? That is a huge amount of money.
Similar threads
