Wouldn't that be something!
Paramount Studios struggling
- Thread starter Botany Bay
- Start date
What kind of movie plot would allow for Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk, Iron Man and Buzz Lightyear to join forces?
Yikes.
Trek is its own flavor, really; it's hard to think of another studio doing it justice. Of course, I feel Abrams didn't get the flavor anyway; he seemed to want to do a Star Wars movie but only had Trek to work with at the time.
Latest: Alibaba to Invest in Paramount's "Star Trek," "Ninja Turtles"
Don't know if this is a good sign or not.
This is what Paramount and several other movie studios have done when they're not confident about a movie, they ask another company to buy into rights for the movie, share both the risk and profit.
I see it as a bad sign for Star Trek: Beyond. It means Paramount, who has already seen internal edits of the movie, thinks it might just barely break even or even result in a loss.
I see it as a bad sign for Star Trek: Beyond. It means Paramount, who has already seen internal edits of the movie, thinks it might just barely break even or even result in a loss.
Paramount's coming off a disappointing year -- they finished last among the major studios at the box office in 2015, and only had two films break $100M domestic: the Mission: Impossible sequel, and the Spongebob movie. It sounds like they're hurting in general, and they did have Alibaba invest in last year's M:I movie, which did well at the box office and was also well received by audiences and critics. So I don't think this means Star Trek Beyond is either in trouble, or a bad movie
Last edited:
What kind of movie plot would allow for Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk, Iron Man and Buzz Lightyear to join forces?
"Nexus Crossover: True Generations" Coming, Summer 2018 Buena Vista Productions
(Be careful what you wish, when you wish upon a star"®)
In a world, where Boys with Toys meet their Toys, and the Force is With Them, comes The One...not man or machine or Jedi Night...just a figure from a bygone era, (brought together with every other beloved franchise we could buy and own, #Disney) riding in to Unify...Signify...be a Friend in Need and Deed...
Woody
But the same company is also investing in the Ninja Turtles sequel, and it previously invested in Mission: Impossible -- Rogue Nation, which was a major hit. Most major movies these days have financing partners. It has nothing to do with lack of faith in the movie, it has to do with how expensive it's become to make and market movies. There's just no way to make a blockbuster movie these days without spreading the cost among a number of producing partners. The 2009 Trek movie, for instance, was co-produced by Spyglass Entertainment, a company whose whole purpose is to invest in film productions. And lots of Hollywood movies over the past few years have been produced with financial assistance from Chinese companies. Iron Man 3 infamously had additional scenes shot for the Chinese release as one of the conditions of the financial partnership (though Chinese audiences hated the new scenes, because they felt tacked on and unrelated to the narrative). Looper had a subplot about the lead character moving to China for the same reason, and also had additional China-based material shot for its Chinese release. Those were both pretty successful and well-regarded films. The state-owned China Film Group Corporation has invested in US films such as Furious 7, Pixels, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon II: Sword of Destiny, and the upcoming Warcraft. It's a common and wide-ranging practice these days.
One I'd pay a lot to see.What kind of movie plot would allow for Luke Skywalker, Captain Kirk, Iron Man and Buzz Lightyear to join forces?
Also, Star-Lord.
We've always been at war with China (or is that East Asia?)...
I think that's a terrible way of looking at Star Trek. It's not supposed to be some tired exercise in nostalgia, it's supposed to be innovative and forward-looking. And if the franchise only appeals to us older fans, then the franchise is doomed in the long run, because we aren't immortal. It's terribly selfish and short-sighted to want Star Trek to be "just for us." If we really love ST, if we really care about what it stands for, then we should want it to attract new generations and inspire them to build a better future, rather than just giving ourselves an excuse to dwell in the past.
Besides, Star Wars already has the nostalgia market cornered. The whole franchise -- hell, George Lucas's entire career -- is just one big homage to the movies and serials Lucas liked as a kid.
This is exactly what Abrams Trek is, as long as you remove innovative and forward-looking.
Star Trek for us older fans is done for because it's all been done. . .numerous times. There's nothing left in the original Trek universe to show the viewer. I don't want to watch something which would undoubtedly be TNG/Voyager episodes remade for the ADHD generation.
But JJTrek has a beautiful look and I believe can be innovative and forward thinking. I think it would be a huge mistake if it goes back into the old universe because that look, that feel is old, not fun. I've talked to my friends, and when I talk Star Trek, it's JJ Abrams. I've got them into the 1966 series and loved it, but once it got to the movies II and IV were the only films they can tolerate. Tolerate.
A few barely got past TNG, and didn't care for the spinoffs. The reasons I got were the shows were too talkie and it didn't feel as if there was a sense of urgency Star Trek had in the 60's and JJ Trek brought back. In other words for you old guys, it was boring. I will watch it because I was raised on Trek through my parents and with my knowledge of it I can speak out for what it was.
I can't imagine the old universe, Berman Universe, could transcend to the energy of JJ Abrams. Enterprise never felt like a prequel series and didn't have the kind of energy I and my peers felt which resembled Star Trek. Even the Mirror episodes, and other fanwankery episodes, some has praised were long drawn out Voyager style episodes with the classic settings and clothing.
Catering to a new audience is THE only direction CBS should be taking, and if they don't? It will be selling a product to an increasing shrinking audience.
A few barely got past TNG, and didn't care for the spinoffs. The reasons I got were the shows were too talkie and it didn't feel as if there was a sense of urgency Star Trek had in the 60's and JJ Trek brought back. In other words for you old guys, it was boring. I will watch it because I was raised on Trek through my parents and with my knowledge of it I can speak out for what it was.
I can't imagine the old universe, Berman Universe, could transcend to the energy of JJ Abrams. Enterprise never felt like a prequel series and didn't have the kind of energy I and my peers felt which resembled Star Trek. Even the Mirror episodes, and other fanwankery episodes, some has praised were long drawn out Voyager style episodes with the classic settings and clothing.
Catering to a new audience is THE only direction CBS should be taking, and if they don't? It will be selling a product to an increasing shrinking audience.
Last edited:
It feels that way already. Conventions--to me at least--like storm chasing--was most fun from the 80s-90s.
While fandom has been mainstreamed--what with Comic-Con and all--it just isn't the same.
I know, Christopher--but part of me thinks that--once our generation dies off--Trek will too. About the time human spaceflight comes to an end.
That doesn't make sense to me. Star Trek is woven into pop culture in a way few other American media franchises are. It's had enormous influence on television and society. The future of Star Trek may not be in a form that's familiar or cozy for old-school fans, but there's no reason to think that such an intrinsically optimistic and forward-looking concept would be immune to revival or unable to inspire future generations.
And why would human spaceflight come to an end? The era of private spaceflight is just getting started, and historically, the exploration and development of new frontiers has generally kicked into high gear once private enterprise got involved. Not to mention that a number of world governments are planning missions to, or colonies on, the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids, including the ESA, China, Japan, and Russia. It's not all on NASA's shoulders anymore.
Attendences at Creation's Trek cons flatlined years ago which is why they've only been running about 3 events a year for nearly the last decade. While I know Vegas sells out every year, I can't help but feel that with it being Trek's 50th, the event won't go on for much longer, especially as the actors and the attendees start to fall off the mortal coil. To be frank, Shatner is essentially the only person keeping Trek conventions going. He'll do anything for the money, and he's the actor everyone wants to see. Once he's gone, I fear that will be it. Apart from Karl Urban, none of the other Abrams Trek cast seem at all interested in doing events.
And as for Patrick Stewart, the less said about him not so far being scheduled for one con appearance this year, the better. And yes, I know he's doing theatre from August until the end of the year. The he and McKellen scheduled this at the time they did, almost makes it look like Stewart's sticking two fingers up at Trek. It stinks of I don't want to do Trek conventions anymore, especially on the 50th anniversary, so I'm going to be an aaaaactooooor and hide myself away in theatre so I don't have to meet the sweaty nerds.