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

[Doc Mugatu]

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!

 

[feek61]

I have always felt that Star Trek never translated well to the big screen but maybe it is because I watched it 10 years on TV before TMP came out. I just think the concept of exploring the universe is suited better to continuing adventures on a weekly bases, not a movie every 3-4 years. You can't get a sense of exploration in a movie because it has to be SO big; the plot has to involve something extraordinarily grand to justify the cost. We end up getting over the top scenarios in the films instead of a continuing exploration and adventure mission.

Besides that the Kelvin universe stories were never very good so that has a lot to do with it as well. I am still optimistic that they can put out a decent series but I am having major doubts at this point.

 

[Infern0]

I wasn't a huge fan of the Kelvin timeline films, they were an OK watch to pass the time but I prefer more thought provoking material from my trek.

In saying that though they took trek from being a dead brand and made it somewhat viable again, in this current market fun action romps are what the paying audience generally wants, and while the Kelvin verse movie were a little light on quality storytelling I didn't find them offensively bad.

I can't say the same for TLJ.

 

[ISS Enterprise]

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!

Agree 100% on Paramount letting
Star Trek down. They could hardly do worse trying to screw it up, IMO

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I honestly think the execs at Paramount are ashamed of Trek because it's not Star Wars and doesn't bring in the money Star Wars does. They didn't try to promote Beyond like they should have. 09 and ID were heavily advertised by JJ's personal production studio, Bad Robot.

 

[Terok Nor]

Loved Beyond. Hated the other two. I think there was potential for more but 4 years between movies is ridiculous and destroyed any momentum they had.

At the end of the day, it was a successful Reboot and kept Trek afloat during a bad time for the franchise but it never lived up to its full potential. It achieved its goal of making Trek a popcorn blockbuster franchise for the big screen for a while and that led to what we have now with multiple TV shows in the works.

I would agree Trek is better on the small screen. The enjoyment of a Trek movie was seeing the old crew from TOS and (at first at least) the TNG crew back for another mission. Kelvin Trek was for all intents and purposes a brand new crew who kinda sorta acted like the old one but only showed up every 4 years and didn't have 80 or 180 episodes to get to know them really well and miss them.

In retrospect perhaps in the future they should take established characters from the TV shows to the big screen since that's how the movies began in the first place. Kelvin Kirk and crew might have had more loyalty if the fans had spent more time with them.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

That Forbes article is a steaming pile of Horta dung.

I find the whole "Star Trek is better suited for TV" mentality myopic thinking. Trek should be, can be and has been a $200M blockbuster franchise.

All this panic at the disco is clickbait. Trek has had many false cinematic starts, all the pre-TMP projects, all those after TMP, before Trek 09, Orci's Trek 3, etc.

It took 20 years for the Mission: Impossible films--the franchise comparable to the new Trek movies--to make 6 movies. They'll be another Trek film eventually.

 

[Maurice]

You CAN do exploration as a big budget blockbuster and make lots of money, i.e. Interstellar and arguably The Martian. You just have to commit to making that kind of movie and not necessarily do pew pew with bad guys and you have to gear it so it can play in foreign markets. Star Trek was always action adventure, but simple-minded bad guys vs. heroes stories miss the franchise's sweet spot.

 

[MarsWeeps]

I'm glad that the Kelvin timeline helped to keep Trek alive but I'm not shedding any tears now that it's finished.

 

[Amaris]

Paramount chickened out is all. Like most studios, they wanted to print money with as little effort and imagination as possible. I loved the Abrams films, and consider Beyond my favorite of the three. Star Trek isn't, and never was, the Star Wars box office cash printing machine Paramount wished it was, and that goes all the way back to The Motion Picture.

 

[CorporalClegg]

If someone presented this article as an ENG101 essay, the Prof would write on it in big bold red letters: "Your text does not match your thesis."

 

[F. King Daniel]

Paramount Pictures are to blame. Nobody else.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Looks like the Kelvin-verse is dead just in time for the new mobile game.

 

[saddestmoon]

Looks like the Kelvin-verse is dead just in time for the new mobile game.

Yeah, I find that to be ironic - as it was a new Kelvinverse ST game! Coming in right at the end A left-field development, methought...

 

[Butters]

I’d argue that there’s never been a Star Trek Movie, only movies with Star Trek characters. The TV series centered around the Enterprise and it’s five year mission. In the TV series, the thing that kicked off the whole thing, anything could happen when the crew beamed down. No movie has done that, Star Trek. It’s just been used to compete with Star Wars, but it’s not Star Wars.

A Star Trek Movie could do very well, I’m sure, if they actually tried making one.

 

[feek61]

^^^
THIS!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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

That said, perhaps this is the tipping point by which Tarantino can get his own Trek film made. ST4 could have been "Yesterday's Kelvin"? QT can still get it done.

 

[Amaris]

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

That said, perhaps this is the tipping point by which Tarantino can get his own Trek film made. ST4 could have been "Yesterday's Kelvin"? QT can still get it done.

I was a little stand-offish at first, but yeah, I'd like to see what Tarantino could do with the Trek franchise.

 

[Longinus]

Whilst I do not have a high opinion of the Kelvin films, 'it will not be as popular as Star Wars' is a bloody idiotic reason for not making a movie. By that logic you might as well can 99.99% of all film projects ever.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

That Forbes article is a steaming pile of Horta dung.

I find the whole "Star Trek is better suited for TV" mentality myopic thinking. Trek should be, can be and has been a $200M blockbuster franchise. ...

I disagree that the Forbe's article is a "steaming pile …" simply because I think it accurately reports Paramount's philosophy regarding Star Trek. I do agree it is shortsighted of them, but that is today's business mentality. They can't see beyond their next quarterly earnings report and how will investors react.

Paramount chickened out is all. Like most studios, they wanted to print money with as little effort and imagination as possible. I loved the Abrams films, and consider Beyond my favorite of the three. Star Trek isn't, and never was, the Star Wars box office cash printing machine Paramount wished it was, and that goes all the way back to The Motion Picture.

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.

If someone presented this article as an ENG101 essay, the Prof would write on it in big bold red letters: "Your text does not match your thesis."

Not disagreeing necessarily, but how so?

I was a little stand-offish at first, but yeah, I'd like to see what Tarantino could do with the Trek franchise.

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."