Poll Should CBS buy out Viacom's movie rights?

[BillJ]

What does that mean? "Change the dynamic," how?

Kirk vs. Spock in this timeline. Maybe set up a new Romulan war. Instead of the Romulans creating the cloaking device, have the Federation do it first. Which leads Spock to have a crisis of conscious and defecting to the Romulan side, with the cloaking device.

Kirk feels betrayed by his former friend. Taking on a Sisko-like hunt for him through the Romulan Empire.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Kirk vs. Spock in this timeline. Maybe set up a new Romulan war. Instead of the Romulans creating the cloaking device, have the Federation do it first. Which leads Spock to have a crisis of conscious and defecting to the Romulan side, with the cloaking device.

Kirk feels betrayed by his former friend. Taking on a Sisko-like hunt for him through the Romulan Empire.

Yuck. That doesn't sound appealing. I think they need to just let the Kelvin line go and just focus on television now. Each movie is bringing less money. They lost any momentum they had when they waited a full 4 years to release STID. Bringing Picard back might bring some much needed hope back to the franchise......or it might not if they decide to go the Luke Skywalker route with his character. Time will tell.

 

[Krandor]

Kirk vs. Spock in this timeline. Maybe set up a new Romulan war. Instead of the Romulans creating the cloaking device, have the Federation do it first. Which leads Spock to have a crisis of conscious and defecting to the Romulan side, with the cloaking device.

Kirk feels betrayed by his former friend. Taking on a Sisko-like hunt for him through the Romulan Empire.

I have no interest in watching that movie.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Their best bet is to do an alien creature feature on a cool, exotic looking planet with the tone/scope of 09 and the humor of STB.

 

[mos6507]

How?

More lens flare?

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I think the kelvin films have been as appealing to wider audiences as trek is ever likely to get. Much more would be dumbing down the source material too much in my opinion. ...

I agree that Kelvin Trek is went for wide appeal, however, that was the problem. Today's CW with reboots largely seems to mean turn them into a parody of their former self. It may sound counter-intuitive but Star Trek needs to get back to its roots and not be broad.

A movie doesn’t have to be dumbed down to make a billion dollars.

Agreed.

In all seriousness, I think Trek will never break past the $500 million barrier. It can thrive on TV like TNG did, but in the cinematic business it doesn’t have that kind of appeal.

I disagree. I think a good solid Star Trek film could absolutely achieve a total global box-office run of $500-600 million. You do it by embracing and respecting what it is that made the franchise special to begin with. Not excise them or turn them into punchlines. Audiences will only respect the material to the extent the studios do. Making Trek a largely generic action only franchise makes it forgettable therefore chopping off it's theatrical "legs."

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Trek films can only be middle-budget projects. Paramount learned that with TMP and acted accordingly. The gamble with Kelvin films was to turn that around and make it a viable franchise on the level of Marvel and Transformers, big crowd pleasers that make north of $500m with a billion being the dream goal. They probably had a chance of making that true with ST09 being a starter for something bigger, but squandered those chances with bad timing and lesser sequels.

 

[Noname Given]

Yuck. That doesn't sound appealing. I think they need to just let the Kelvin line go and just focus on television now. Each movie is bringing less money. They lost any momentum they had when they waited a full 4 years to release STID. Bringing Picard back might bring some much needed hope back to the franchise......or it might not if they decide to go the Luke Skywalker route with his character. Time will tell.

As usual your facts are uncoordinated:
ST09:
Domestic: $257,730,019 66.8%
+ Foreign: $127,950,427 33.2%
= Worldwide: $385,680,446

ST: ID:
Domestic: $228,778,661 48.9%
+ Foreign: $238,602,808 51.1%
= Worldwide: $467,381,469
^^^
It brought in more than ST:09 - so your statement fails there.

ST: B
Domestic: $158,848,340 46.2%
+ Foreign: $184,623,476 53.8%
= Worldwide: $343,471,816
^^^
Worst performing of the 3 Kelvin films but overall even adjusted for inflation they all performed better than the four TNG films. ST: B is also the most liked of the JJ Films among harder core Star Trek fans, yet it performed the worst, so yet again, the evidence is that making a film that just appeals to Star Trek fans first and foremost isn't a recipe for box office success.

To be fair though, I think Paramount (because of the ballooned budget due to them spending money on pre-production on a script they abandoned); they thought they could lower the marketing Budget and rely on 'word of mouth' and that too probably bite them in the ass on ST: B.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Trek films can only be middle-budget projects. Paramount learned that with TMP and acted accordingly. The gamble with Kelvin films was to turn that around and make it a viable franchise on the level of Marvel and Transformers, big crowd pleasers that make north of $500m with a billion being the dream goal. They probably had a chance of making that true with ST09 being a starter for something bigger, but squandered those chances with bad timing and lesser sequels.

I don't know what your definition of middle budget is, therefore, I'll skip it.

As for Paramount and TMP, I think you are a bit off. Remember TMP's budget was inflated to accommodate all the previous false starts and change of plans. Even still it did well and, when adjusted for inflation, stills ranks as the second highest grossing Star Trek film (domestically). I have read (unofficial) that worldwide it made in the neighborhood of $200 million back in 1979-1980. So what lesson did they learn exactly? Star Trek: TWoK was HUGE relative to its time ranking #6 on the year (1982).

So I disagree that Star Trek is incapable of attaining success on par with or exceeding most of it's contemporaries. I'll agree the franchise would fall short of the $1 billion bar and it may not be number 1 on a given year but it could definitely be top 5.

First and foremost, The problem with the Kelvin Trek, to date, has been Paramount/Bad Robot has basically given the world the same superficial action-flick three times in a row. As Scotty would say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times and I'm outta here!"

 

[Doc Mugatu]

As usual your facts are uncoordinated:
ST09:
Domestic: $257,730,019 66.8%
+ Foreign: $127,950,427 33.2%
= Worldwide: $385,680,446

ST: ID:
Domestic: $228,778,661 48.9%
+ Foreign: $238,602,808 51.1%
= Worldwide: $467,381,469
^^^
It brought in more than ST:09 - so your statement fails there.

ST: B
Domestic: $158,848,340 46.2%
+ Foreign: $184,623,476 53.8%
= Worldwide: $343,471,816
^^

Not to be a butinski however his source I would guess: Star Trek/Box Office Mojo

 

[M'Sharak]

Not to be a butinski however his source I would guess: Star Trek/Box Office Mojo

Box Office Mojo is certainly the source of the figures quoted by @Noname Given — the links are right there in his post.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Box Office Mojo is certainly the source of the figures quoted by @Noname Given — the links are right there in his post.

My apologies. Currently in a high glare environment and did not see them.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

By middle budget, I largely mean the kind that Trek films used to get from movies II-X, which would probably go up to $100m in today's money. Certainly no where near $200m. As nice as it was to see Star Trek get the big budget treatment that movies like Marvel films indulge in, they clearly can't reach those heights at the box office, at least not until the brand became strong enough to ensure that kind of box office clout.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

By middle budget, I largely mean the kind that Trek films used to get from movies II-X, which would probably go up to $100m in today's money. Certainly no where near $200m. As nice as it was to see Star Trek get the big budget treatment that movies like Marvel films indulge in, they clearly can't reach those heights at the box office, at least not until the brand became strong enough to ensure that kind of box office clout.

$100 million. That's reasonable, and I agree with your Marvel comments. Especially since Marvel has Kevin Feige making sure the films build to something epic. Now if Paramount wanted to name a Czar of Star Trek who would work a similar battle plan then the franchise's cinematic fortunes could brighten considerably. Hell, I'd even vote for J. Michael Straczynski to take the job as he certainly couldn't do it anymore harm.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I thought Abrams would be that guy, as he is the producer. But then again, he has so much under his name he can't function in the way that Feige has for Marvel.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

I thought Abrams would be that guy, as he is the producer. But then again, he has so much under his name he can't function in the way that Feige has for Marvel.

Also he has to be given that direction from the studio or at least get their approval. I don't believe anyone ever approached Star Trek film reboot with that "let's be ambitious and build towards something epic" POV. In theory, they still could. Hell, they could always reboot to a Kelvin TNG if they so desire.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I assumed that would be the next step after Pike and that cast bow out, because where else would Paramount go? Stewart coming back for a TV series would make it awkward to try introducing a young Kelvinverse Picard, unless they get an established name that people could get behind. James McAvoy made a very believable young Xavier. Not that they should get him, but an actor as well respected. Like Tom Hardy, and I'm only half kidding.

 

[N-121973]

There's no development hell. There's a dispute on wages.

They could always sell coffee to help finance the film and pay Pine & Hemsworth's wages .