Has SNW made future Kelvin movies obsolete?

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by F. King Daniel, May 31, 2022.

  1. M'rk son of Mogh

    M'rk son of Mogh Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    What loss? Don't put Marvel levels of money into it and they'll make a profit. There's minimal risk, the Kelvin movies did well enough that they could have kept going. They're just as dumb as the other studios wanting Marvel profits. It's not about risk. It's about selfish greed.
     
  2. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    In SUMMMMMMER!
    I always love this comment like there is no risk! There's always risk. You have to be willing to suffer loss and take a hit when things don't go well, because these things are expensive, even without Marvel levels of money poured in.

    They are not greedy; they are scared and not willing to be irresponsible with money. I love how that is painted as greed.
     
  3. M'rk son of Mogh

    M'rk son of Mogh Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Pine originally left because they went against what he signed his contract for when they said they were going to pay him less.

    It's greed.

    And yeah, you're right. There's risk. Like my house getting hit by an asteroid. Or my neighbour getting struck by lightning through an open window on a sunny day. Everything has risk. Thank you for reminding me.

    But Star Trek 4 released at a decent time after Beyond? Sorry, there's minimal risk. Money is there. They just wanted Marvel money. Anybody that followed any news article from the time is more than aware of this. 1 million percent greed.

    To quote Chris Pine (I'll take his word over yours, amongst, as I said, EVERY other person commenting on the situation at the time):
    "We always tried to get the huge international market. It was always about making the billion dollars. It was always this billion-dollar mark because Marvel was making a billion. Billion, billion, billion."

    Greed.
     
    Richard S. Ta likes this.
  4. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    In SUMMMMMMER!
    I disagree that there is no risk. Yes, there's greed. And also risk. That's business.

    Don't expect me to shed tears when a company decides not to risk money. I don't see anyone else ponying up their millions to support Star Trek.
     
    Richard S. Ta likes this.
  5. M'rk son of Mogh

    M'rk son of Mogh Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Like the millions per episode for 5 (so far) successful new ongoing Star Trek series?

    If Star Trek was so risky, we'd have zero.
    If movies were this risky, theatres would show nothing.

    This is literally their business. To make movies. Trek is way less riskier than most other things they're churning out. But they just want more than it's capable of bringing in. Because they're greedy.
     
  6. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    In SUMMMMMMER!
    Consistency, the streaming series have brought in subscribers. While there is risk, it is now ameliorated by the number of series, allowing for more profitability over time.

    A film doesn't have that safety net.
     
  7. M'rk son of Mogh

    M'rk son of Mogh Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Sure it does. It has the same streaming safety net all other services now have.
     
  8. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    In SUMMMMMMER!
    It doesn't because more money is spent and split than in streaming. It's not quite the same. Sadly, and I do blame Paramount's mismanagement of 09 going forward, Trek films have presented as a diminishing return. Which sucks, but there it is.

    Again, no tears shed.
     
  9. F. King Daniel

    F. King Daniel Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    King Daniel Beyond
    How many regimes has Paramount been through since Beyond? I think 2 or 3. They're not in the best shape, they cannot afford a Trek movie tanking on the scale of the last Men in Black.
     
    fireproof78 likes this.
  10. David cgc

    David cgc Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    Florida
    Also, we're still in the land-rush era of streaming (though Netflix's recent slowdowns in growth and flirtation with cheaper ad-supported options indicate that may be ending). Services are willing to lose money to attract subscribers, so the standards for success are lower and it's more acceptable for a show to be a loss-leader. Similar to Amazon, or Uber, or Grubhub, the customer experience is being heavily subsidized, and we're getting a lot more money spent on TV now than makes strict economic sense. Even if you could magically translate every dollar spent on streaming Trek to a Trek movie and get the same return in terms of ticket sales P+ is getting in streaming subscriptions, I doubt it would add up. It's just not okay to lose money on movies the way it is on TV in the current environment.