Definitely agree. It’s struggling for relevancy in a market which is crowded. I’ve said it before, time was when Star Trek was the biggest game in sci-fi town, but that hasn’t been the case for a long long time.
Should Paramount put a mid-budget Star Trek film into theaters?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Definitely agree. It’s struggling for relevancy in a market which is crowded. I’ve said it before, time was when Star Trek was the biggest game in sci-fi town, but that hasn’t been the case for a long long time.
Star Trek's last two periods of relative popularity (TNG and 09/ID) happened when Star Wars was on hiatus. When Star Wars came back in the late 90s, it essentially ended the Berman era, and now that Star Wars is pretty much running full time, there's not much interest in Star Trek (echoing @WarpFactorZ , the 20-somethings I've worked with are all big Marvel and Star Wars fans, none of them watch Trek at all).
I saw Godzilla won the vfx award. It's the feel good choice I guess. I still think Creator was better.
What's impressive was Godzilla cost $10-20 million and Creator $80 million.
Even Dune cost $50-100 million less than a Marvel movie.
I hope ST4 can be made $150 million.
What's impressive was Godzilla cost $10-20 million and Creator $80 million.
Even Dune cost $50-100 million less than a Marvel movie.
I hope ST4 can be made $150 million.
Last edited:
Yup. And the typical response by Trek to immediately go back to familiar or insular stories it won't invite new viewers at all.
P+ is a hindrance to some degree. While it has grown immensely, it doesn't have the international reach it needs.
Discovery and Picard had the world at their feet, with huge worldwide audiences, most likely the largest Trek has ever had, but in their desire to bring it under one roof, they lost Netflix and its cachet and eyeballs and Prime with its 200+ countries. Now P+ struggles to reach 40 countries.
So for far too briefly, they were laying a base for their movies. Whether any of that audience remains for ST4 remains to be seen.
Star Trek today is too internal and spends too much time looking backwards. DISCO has the Spock connection and gave us SNW - which can't stop mining TOS characters. Picard season 3 - for which fans gave Matalas the keys to their hearts - was an Easter Egg hunt nostalgia fest. From what I can see Lower Decks spends a lot of time with references and old Trek characters.
Once upon a time, Star Trek was made by TV and movie producers for the general public and was embraced by fans. Now it's made by Trekkies for Trekkies. Great if you like expensive fan films but that's not how you appeal to the general audience.
How do you make a good and successful mid-budget Trek? "I do have a theory." I feel like if it's a good story, has an attractive cast and a really good marketing campaign (which ST09 had but Beyond didn't), you may ramp up enough interest in it to give it a shot. Never underestimate a great trailer. But you have to make it accessible, which means leaving the fanwank at home and making it easy for the non fans to follow along. No Romulan War movie - nobody outside the Trek BBS gives a shit. No rewriting old stories or tying up continuity or doing a Klingon homeworld epic. The average person would feel like they're walking into Nerd City if they went to that movie.
People like humor, time travel, good looking stars, romantic tension, action and light mystery. Keep the aliens to a minimum. One Vulcan or something would be enough. Cast appeal: Jennifer Lawrence could use another franchise. Michael B. Jordan would be a draw. Boom, there are your leads. Go cheaper for the rest. Leave Khan out of it. Forever.
Once upon a time, Star Trek was made by TV and movie producers for the general public and was embraced by fans. Now it's made by Trekkies for Trekkies. Great if you like expensive fan films but that's not how you appeal to the general audience.
How do you make a good and successful mid-budget Trek? "I do have a theory." I feel like if it's a good story, has an attractive cast and a really good marketing campaign (which ST09 had but Beyond didn't), you may ramp up enough interest in it to give it a shot. Never underestimate a great trailer. But you have to make it accessible, which means leaving the fanwank at home and making it easy for the non fans to follow along. No Romulan War movie - nobody outside the Trek BBS gives a shit. No rewriting old stories or tying up continuity or doing a Klingon homeworld epic. The average person would feel like they're walking into Nerd City if they went to that movie.
People like humor, time travel, good looking stars, romantic tension, action and light mystery. Keep the aliens to a minimum. One Vulcan or something would be enough. Cast appeal: Jennifer Lawrence could use another franchise. Michael B. Jordan would be a draw. Boom, there are your leads. Go cheaper for the rest. Leave Khan out of it. Forever.
Last edited:
Well, I can agree on this.
But what of Madeleine? What of Madeleine…
I eagerly await all the budgetary proposals from this BBS, since everyone has it all figured out. 
Already submitted mine to Paramount and signed an NDA. Sorry.I eagerly await all the budgetary proposals from this BBS, since everyone has it all figured out.
I eagerly await all the budgetary proposals from this BBS, since everyone has it all figured out.
It's not figured out - it's just an opinion. The second and third Kelvin movies cost way too much money to make for what they brought in at the box office, especially the third one. It's pretty clear that another near 200m budgeted Trek movie is a massive risk to the studio, especially considering it's now been seven years since the last one.
Good job.
I wonder if that’s because a huge amount of it is a CGI cartoon with no live actors? I bet filming actual people in sci-fi environments is what makes things expensive. Although, I suppose the CGI rendering is considerably cheaper than in was ten years ago when they made Beyond, so less money probably goes further than it did then.
Thanks.
It's funny because studios would kill for Beyond's "soft" opening today.
I know I'd go to see one. I don't know if Paramount would want to run the risk of putting stuff in theatres.
This is what streaming is for.
The state of the theatrical business is very segmented and handcuffed by gigantism. On nearly every good release weekend of the year there are a couple of big budget movies duking it out. Then there are somewhat less expensive films targeted at specific genre audiences - horror films, rom-coms, etc.
When a studio like Paramount has to choose - and they do have to choose - which film to push for the widest release and to spend the big promotional bucks on, do they put those resources behind the fifty-million-dollar Trek movie or the two-hundred-million-dollar flick starring Tom Cruise that's going to sink their stock price if it doesn't have a mega huge opening weekend?
This sort of dilemma was part of what sunk Serenity, at a much earlier point in the current industry cycle.
The state of the theatrical business is very segmented and handcuffed by gigantism. On nearly every good release weekend of the year there are a couple of big budget movies duking it out. Then there are somewhat less expensive films targeted at specific genre audiences - horror films, rom-coms, etc.
When a studio like Paramount has to choose - and they do have to choose - which film to push for the widest release and to spend the big promotional bucks on, do they put those resources behind the fifty-million-dollar Trek movie or the two-hundred-million-dollar flick starring Tom Cruise that's going to sink their stock price if it doesn't have a mega huge opening weekend?
This sort of dilemma was part of what sunk Serenity, at a much earlier point in the current industry cycle.
Similar threads
- Poll
