Forbes: Paramount Has Canceled 'Star Trek 4,' And Disney's 'Star Wars' Is To Blame

[Amaris]

I agree. Paramount has been absolutely cowardly in terms of Star Trek. I disliked the Kelvin-U films because I believe they absolutely reflect that cowardice and lack of imagination. They fundamentally lobotomized Star Trek, went for the low hanging fruit and a quick and easy payoff.

There was and is nothing stopping the folks at Paramount from mapping out and producing an epic Star Trekian trilogy that would rival Star Wars while remaining true to itself and celebrate it's uniqueness. My opine.

I realize they're not high art, but I enjoyed the films nonetheless, with "Beyond" ticking all the right buttons for me. I can still remember watching the first ten minutes of Star Trek (2009) and just being amazed by it. For me, it remains some of the best 10 minutes of Star Trek ever, and the best Star Trek film opening sequence ever. I just dislike how Paramount essentially said "make us a bunch of money" and then didn't bother to promote their films. If I were more cynical, I'd say they did it on purpose to wash themselves of the results. Whether one likes him or not (I do), at least JJ Abrams had the fortitude to push his films as far as he could.

I too as I am not a wholesale Quinton Tarantino fan, but would love to see him shake things up and expand upon what Paramount suits think Star Trek can be. I doubt it will happen though. They'd sign Tarantino for the publicity and then bury him with notes until he left over "creative differences."

That's likely. These larger studios don't take risks anymore. They want reliable, predictable fare that will guarantee billions in bank. It's why we see a metric ton of Transformers films (not my cup of tea, but if people like them that's cool), and few actual new franchises being explored.

 

[BillJ]

Paramount only has their own incompetence to blame for the failure of the Star Trek franchise on the big screen.

 

[Dukhat]

Blaming another franchise for the failure of your own would seem to be a childish thing to do.

Yes. Unfortunately it's far easier to place blame on others instead of where it actually belongs.

 

[Rahul]

Forbes magazine published an article: Paramount Has Canceled 'Star Trek 4,' And Disney's 'Star Wars' Is To Blame.

Basically says Paramount feels that now Disney is pumping out Star Wars movies yearly (as well as MCU)that Star Trek is best left to television as it is not a property that can compete and bring in the same level of box office treasure.

My opinion: I agree and disagree. Star Trek films can't compete because of how Paramount has treated it. These Kelvin films were never true to Trek's core nature. They forced it to be something it wasn't meant to be … a mind numbing action franchise and therefore generic sci-fi. It was meant to be more than that. Basically Paramount has hobbled the concept of Star Trek is and can be since right after The Undiscovered Country retired The Original Series crew.

Disney maybe fumbling a bit with the Star Wars franchise, however, they haven't yet turned it into a complete farce like Paramount has with Star Trek. The last two Kelvin films have been "meh" and as a result the majority of the audience felt no need to revisit them at the theater. Produce a movie that makes full use of Star Trek's concept and it could bring in twice the box-office (at least) that the Kelvin movies have.

Star Trek didn't let down Paramount. Paramount let down Star Trek!

That's really, really stupid on Paramounts part. But it also shines a light on their thinking:

In their mind, "Star Trek" simply is a lesser "Star Wars".

That's why they never had really success with it. Because they know jack-shit about Star Trek. They think "all sci-fi is the same". Then they force Trek into being primarily an action franchise. Pump it full of money for shining effects. And then wonder why it doesn't make the same money as Star Wars.

Star Trek is different. Star Trek has it's own identity! As long as they don't aknowledge that, they will NEVER be "really" successfull! I feel like we're stuck in the 80s, after Tim Burtons "Batman" came out - and instead of thinking "hey, let's do other comicbook adaptions", everyone tried to copy Burtons aesthetic - dark moody pulp heroes, Dick Tracy, Darkman - but none of them made Batman-money. Of course not.

Star Trek is NOT Star Wars! Trying to make it that, will never succeed. It needs to be it's own identity: More concept focus, but is allowed to have a smaller budget.

 

[Mudd]

Scott Mendelson always speaks authoritatively and with deep knowledge of...I dunno, the need to generate clicks for Forbes.

 

[Ridcully]

Methinks they should just go the way of long episodes like Game of Thrones.....
That way they could make something cool if they really put their mind into it....Trek movies are ok....but none of them where that fantastic....

 

[Mudd]

Well, the last three are about the best Trek entertainment we've had in fifteen years...

 

[ALF]

Sounds right, the reasoning anyway.

Let's say for example, they wanted to reboot TOS (again) and reboot with new unknown actors, same characters for a longer film series run. The same issue will arise: with a 4 year production gap between offerings, many of your stars become bigger stars with more pay, they outgrow your budget and then.... womp womp we can't pay for our leads anymore.

The only thing that sounds wrong (outdated) about this is the Star Wars once-a-year thing. Maybe every 2 years? We've got a smattering of Star Wars tv shows coming down the pipeline, not including the ones already shelved (Detours, 1313, etc).

So it sounds a little out of touch to say, "we'll focus on Trek back on TV, where thankfully, we've found no evidence of Star Wars lingering to date."

 

[mos6507]

So it sounds a little out of touch to say, "we'll focus on Trek back on TV, where thankfully, we've found no evidence of Star Wars lingering to date."

If so, bad call on their part. Star Wars has had an animated presence on TV and will soon have two and maybe more live-action streaming shows.

 

[Smellmet]

Well, the last three are about the best Trek entertainment we've had in fifteen years...

Fifteen? I think you're being generous. More like thirty-seven years. Movie wise at least.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I realize they're not high art, but I enjoyed the films nonetheless, with "Beyond" ticking all the right buttons for me. I can still remember watching the first ten minutes of Star Trek (2009) and just being amazed by it. For me, it remains some of the best 10 minutes of Star Trek ever, and the best Star Trek film opening sequence ever.

Originally I liked (read: understood and tolerated) the first Star Trek (2009) reboot. It got folks excited about the franchise again, however, my initial approval was contingent upon where they went with the franchise in the sequels. As the follow-up films become more of the same my estimation of the first deflated. They never even attempted to tell more than one type of story or have the characters be anything more than generic popular action film stereotypes. Star Trek, to me, is more than just calling guns "phasers" or traveling at "Warp Factor Gazillion-Point-Four." Paramount and Jar-Jar Abrams just squeegeed all that was unique and magical in Star Trek (especially The Original Series) and ultimately turned it into a farce. For that I curse them with the evil eye.

I just dislike how Paramount essentially said "make us a bunch of money" and then didn't bother to promote their films. If I were more cynical, I'd say they did it on purpose to wash themselves of the results. Whether one likes him or not (I do), at least JJ Abrams had the fortitude to push his films as far as he could.

Personally, time has made me not a fan of Abrams helmed reboots. His original stuff is far more enjoyable.

Yes. Unfortunately it's far easier to place blame on others instead of where it actually belongs.

Hollywood is a notoriously CYA industry.

...The only thing that sounds wrong (outdated) about this is the Star Wars once-a-year thing. Maybe every 2 years? We've got a smattering of Star Wars tv shows coming down the pipeline, not including the ones already shelved (Detours, 1313, etc). So it sounds a little out of touch to say, "we'll focus on Trek back on TV, where thankfully, we've found no evidence of Star Wars lingering to date."

Unfortunately the corporate thinking, conventional wisdom, at all the studios are pretty close to the same nowadays. If you are not exploiting your properties to the fullest then you are leaving money on the table and the stockholders will beat you up for it therefore bonuses maybe withheld or reduced (also possibly fired). Paramount totally let down Star Trek, Disney produced Star Wars has been, AT BEST, a mixed bag ranging from "okay" to "God awful." Both companies seemehell bent on underestimating what "science fiction/fantasy" can or should be (this is largely due to their chase of a global audience).

 

[Smellmet]

Unfortunately these reboot movies came in an era of blockbuster movies where you were expected to go big or go home, with massive destruction and huge CG setpieces being mandatory. I never thought I'd see the day where nigh on 200 million dollars would get spunked on a trek film (which is still a huge sum even nearly six years later), especially one where a federation starship flattens San Francisco without a slightest fuck given about the casualties but that's what's been going on this last decade or so. With this kind of money on the line, it kind of had to be spectacular, which it was.

Was all this at the expense of substance? Yes I think it was in parts, but I thought it still maintained a lot of the spirit of TOS (especially beyond) still, and had this goofy, colourful energy to it which I found quite refreshing at times.

All three movies make my top 5 behind TWOK and TMP, all day long.

 

[Khan 2.0]

never thought I'd see the day where nigh on 200 million dollars would get spunked on a trek film (which is still a huge sum even nearly six years later), especially one where a federation starship flattens San Francisco without a slightest fuck given about the casualties but that's what's been going on this last decade or so. With this kind of money on the line, it kind of had to be spectacular, which it was.

No trek fan in their wildest dreams ever imagined there would be 200m Trek movies. I remember an interview with Bryan Singer couple years before 2009 and the interviewer asked him about a 200m Trek movie and it just seemed an impossible concept

TrekMovie.com: So you are excited about JJ Abrams?
Singer: Oh yah, yah. I don’t think it is anything he is doing lightly. It is something he really cares about it and he is really talented. I cant wait to see it. I hope they give him enough money to do it right. Very often with the Star Trek franchise because I don’t think it plays so well foreign, they end up cutting the budgets and cutting and cutting. Very often some parts start looking like television movies. I hope they give it the resources to make it look right.
TrekMovie.com: Superman Returns cost about $200 [million] and Star Trek Nemesis cost about $65 [million], so what do you think the magic sweet spot for a Star Trek movie, if you were making one?
Singer: Well it is all script dependent [laughing] I would go northing of 100 if I start adding up visual effects in my head. But that is just unfortunately that is the cost of today’s audiences palette.
TrekMovie.com: Do you think a 200 million dollar Star Trek movie could make money?
Singer: I don’t think it would make money, but I would sure as shit go see it
https://trekmovie.com/2007/05/12/interview-bryan-singer-on-trek/

 

[Rahul]

Well, the last three are about the best Trek entertainment we've had in fifteen years...

I fully agree! The Kelvin-movies were the best Trek movies we had in the last 15 years.

On a related note: Star Trek: Discovery is definitely the best Star Trek show in the last 15 years as well!

 

[Smellmet]

No trek fan in their wildest dreams ever imagined there would be 200m Trek movies. I remember an interview with Bryan Singer couple years before 2009 and the interviewer asked him about a 200m Trek movie and it just seemed an impossible concept

I'm really grateful they happened, and that we got a solid trilogy of movies. Like it or not they have reinvigorated the franchise in ways that seemed impossible after the disastrous nemesis. It's certainly reinvigorated my interest, and into Darkness, was the reason I joined these boards if you look at my joining date.

I've always wanted a proper blockbuster trek movie since TMP came out, and despite some great outings they never delivered on that front, often looking cheap and compromised in some way. These three movies, whilst not groundbreaking on the FX front, were slick and visually quite distinctive, especially the first two, though beyond still had technically the best visuals. The FX in 09 still hold up extremely well despite nearing a decade in age and could be released today no problem. Each one had some truly spectacular stuff in them.

I would liked them to have been a more joined up story but there was still some solid character stuff, especially with kirks arc. Some sloppy writing aside in the first two, and questionable shit like the khaaaan scream in into darkness, beastie boy/motorcycle scene in beyond, I think they're all great films and very rewatchable. I would have loved a fourth movie, but it went out on a great note at the end of beyond with a newly motivated kirk embarking on new adventures in the 'A'

I do think that maybe now is the time for a slight change of direction, for the movie franchise at least. What form that takes we will have to sit tight and see.

 

[gottacook]

I do think that maybe now is the time for a slight change of direction, for the movie franchise at least.

There is no "movie franchise" at the moment. For that matter, it could be argued that the last three movies didn't constitute one, either.

"Doctor Korby was never here."

 

[Smellmet]

There will be if another gets made, whatever it's form. It will still be a trek movie and part of the franchise. I'm just talking semantics.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

There will be if another gets made, whatever it's form. It will still be a trek movie and part of the franchise. I'm just talking semantics.

The way things are trending with studios putting an ever increasing amount of effort into breaking audiences of their theater going habit there is a very good chance they may take the form of movies made for CBS All-Access.

 

[Lance]

History repeating.

Star Wars was originally what killed Trek as a movie franchise, driving the development of a TV show, 'Star Trek Phase II'.

Paramount felt like Star Trek "couldn't compete" with star wars, and was better suited for television success.

It took Close Encounters to convince Paramount that big movie sci-fi success was not George Lucas fluking it with his little ode to Flash Gordon.


Are we to wonder if Paramount needs another reminder? Another movie to make them stand up and say, "a Star Trek movie could work"?

I think the wild card are all these big budget blockbuster superhero epics taking in billions of $

I would suggest an Avengers-esque Trek movie would be where it's going, some kind of cross-generations thing.

Ultimately we're gonna see Pine!Kirk and McAvoy!Picard making breakfast in a log cabin.

Again.

History repeating.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I would suggest an Avengers-esque Trek movie would be where it's going, some kind of cross-generations thing.

I have a feeling we'll get a CBS-AA Defenders rather than a movie Avengers. Assuming the next wave of Trek shows isn't a flop, Burnham, Picard, Pike, Georgiou, [Starfleet Academy series characters] and others will be united across time to battle some baddie team-up.