Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley developing Star Trek reboot for Paramount

[Visitor1982]

People on here keep screaming about what the fans want, but most fans want totally different things. Besides, there are currently not enough fans to keep a TV series afloat, let alone a movie with a much higher budget. Whether you like it or not, Paramount is a business and they need to cater to the general audience to create a profit, and with a name like Star Trek, that is going to be hard enough.

 

[fireproof78]

We" just want STAR TREK.

Define Star Trek.

 

[FredH]

Never, ever make a movie providing what a portion of the audience says they want — at least, not because they say they want it. A good movie is something the audience wasn’t looking for and discovers they like. Providing “what people want” is where lukewarm retreads come from.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Define Star Trek.

Define 'we'.

 

[HotRod]

Honestly, I don't understand why they don't just take another crack at a Kelvin movie. They already have a great cast, and all the hard work of establishing that universe and its place in the franchise has already been done. They have an open runway where they can tell pretty much any story they want without having to worry about fitting perfectly into 60 years of established continuity.

Just make a fun, rip roaring adventure with the Kelvin cast. Keep the budget under control, put together a strong marketing campaign, and let the movie speak for itself. Star Trek is never going to be Star Wars, Marvel, or one of those billion dollar franchises, and that's okay. If you can consistently make the kind of money Star Trek (2009) or Into Darkness made, that's the sweet spot. There's nothing wrong with aiming for that.

Just make more movies like those. Make them exciting, make them entertaining, and throw in just enough thoughtful ideas to give people something to chew on afterward. That's always been one of Star Trek's strengths.

Yes, Beyond underperformed, but in my opinion that had more to do with poor marketing than the movie itself.

 

[BillJ]

Yes, Beyond underperformed, but in my opinion that had more to do with poor marketing than the movie itself.

I tend to think the Abramsverse was done when the internet ran with a poll from a Vegas convention where 100 people claimed Into Darkness was the worst Trek film ever. It felt like Paramount never had any faith in it after that.

 

[HotRod]

I tend to think the Abramsverse was done when the internet ran with a poll from a Vegas convention where 100 people claimed Into Darkness was the worst Trek film ever. It felt like Paramount never had any faith in it after that.

Yeah, it's best they ignore stuff like that. Obviously you want to make something that appeals to Trekkies, but you need to get the general audience. From what I remember, the only people really screaming loudly about Into Darkness were the hardcore fans who felt it didn't fit their vision. Hell, I just looked at Rotten Tomatoes. Its got an 84% with critics and a 89% with audiences. Clearly, the general public wasn't upset about Cumberbatch being Khan.

 

[Firebird]

I tend to think the Abramsverse was done when the internet ran with a poll from a Vegas convention where 100 people claimed Into Darkness was the worst Trek film ever. It felt like Paramount never had any faith in it after that.

That’s the problem to begin with. Paramount put too much faith in heavily-slanted reviews.

 

[Dukhat]

I honestly think Paramount (or whoever is in charge these days; I'm not sure anymore) hasn't got a clue about 'what fans want,' nor do I think they have a clue about doing anything that has nothing to do with what fans want. CBSAA/P+ made six different and distinct Trek shows in less that ten years, and cancelled them all (well, PIC wasn't technically cancelled but they had no interest in making more, nor any interest in some ill-defined 'Legacy' spinoff.) They seem to have no idea where to take Star Trek anymore, and it looks like after next year they're going to let it lie fallow (which, ironically, might be the best thing they could do right now.)

 

[BillJ]

I honestly think Paramount (or whoever is in charge these days; I'm not sure anymore) hasn't got a clue about 'what fans want,' nor do I think they have a clue about doing anything that has nothing to do with what fans want. CBSAA/P+ made six different and distinct Trek shows in less that ten years, and cancelled them all (well, PIC wasn't technically cancelled but they had no interest in making more, nor any interest in some ill-defined 'Legacy' spinoff.) They seem to have no idea where to take Star Trek anymore, and it looks like after next year they're going to let it lie fallow (which, ironically, might be the best thing they could do right now.)

They are boxed in by a thousand hours of material and a generation that doesn't really seem much interested in Star Trek. A tough nut to crack.

 

[Dukhat]

They are boxed in by a thousand hours of material and a generation that doesn't really seem much interested in Star Trek. A tough nut to crack.

Oh, I know. I very much feel sorry for them, or at least as sorry as I can be with how I personally feel about them.

 

[oktay]

I think the success of ST '09 and the changes in the movie business since the days of the old TOS movies have changed studio execs' expectations. Star Trek's not something that can be handed off to a TV producer and some semi-retired TV actors with a modest budget. A new Star Trek movie has to be big and it has to be as close to a sure thing as possible. Big director, big stars with busy schedules, big budget, all while there's a lot going on with the studio behind the scenes and a whole level of toxic fandom activity that didn't exist in the days of the first ten movies.

I disagree. For a film to be truly successful, it needs to gross 3-4 times its budget, which is why the last three Star Trek films failed to meet expectations at the box office. I think what they should do is make a moderately successful film with a $100 million budget, but as you said, TV and film stars with busy schedules can do that. I'm sorry, but Star Trek isn't like Star Wars or the MCU. It needs to be more like Paramount's Sonic films or Legendary's Godzilla and Kong films; a film series made with a moderate budget and achieving moderate box office success.

 

[fireproof78]

They are boxed in by a thousand hours of material and a generation that doesn't really seem much interested in Star Trek. A tough nut to crack.

Exactly. There's no winning here. They can't predict anything and it's not helped by current economic conditions.

 

[Gepard]

WHEN are they going to understand that (as far as I can tell) a big part the fanbase does NOT want a "subversion", "darker and grittier", "re-invention" or ANYTHING like that bs?

They say "subvert," but then compare it to D&D: Honor Among Thieves, which doesn't feel subversive to me at all. So I don't understand what they're trying to say.

 

[I am not Spock]

It’ll be out right after Amazon Bond, maybe.

as a Bond and Trek fan, it's been an extremely frustrating decade, on the movie side.

 

[I am not Spock]

Trek means different things to different people. Some love the characters, some the ships and tech, some the sci fi storytelling, some the political allegories, et cetera. No movie will ever please everyone. So they have to make a film have as much broad appeal as possible.

Personally, i think Trek works better on TV. They are insistent on focusing on the movie side of the franchise, which i think is a mistake.

 

[Steve Roby]

I disagree. For a film to be truly successful, it needs to gross 3-4 times its budget, which is why the last three Star Trek films failed to meet expectations at the box office. I think what they should do is make a moderately successful film with a $100 million budget, but as you said, TV and film stars with busy schedules can do that. I'm sorry, but Star Trek isn't like Star Wars or the MCU. It needs to be more like Paramount's Sonic films or Legendary's Godzilla and Kong films; a film series made with a moderate budget and achieving moderate box office success.

I know Star Trek has done well in the past with moderate budgets and moderate success, but that model gradually stopped working. I suspect the execs who want another Star Trek movie want another Star Trek 2009, not another Star Trek Nemesis, whether that's a reasonable expectation or not.

 

[oktay]

I know Star Trek has done well in the past with moderate budgets and moderate success, but that model gradually stopped working. I suspect the execs who want another Star Trek movie want another Star Trek 2009, not another Star Trek Nemesis, whether that's a reasonable expectation or not.

The reason Nemesis flopped at the box office was its wrong timing; it wasn't released simultaneously worldwide. It was released in the US and gradually expanded globally over six months. If it had been released simultaneously worldwide in 2000, it would have been a box office success. As for Star Trek 2009, it was released simultaneously worldwide – and I think at the right time – but it still didn't achieve the desired box office success.

 

[FredH]

I know Star Trek has done well in the past with moderate budgets and moderate success, but that model gradually stopped working. I suspect the execs who want another Star Trek movie want another Star Trek 2009, not another Star Trek Nemesis, whether that's a reasonable expectation or not.

Sure, they want it… but it feels like continuing to throw big budgets and common-denominator plots at the screen would continue to underperform, don’t you think?

 

[Steve Roby]

Almost certainly. I can't imagine what actually would work right now. If not for the fact that it's been ten years already since the last Star Trek movie, I'd be tempted to give it a rest for a few years.