Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag

Maybe tv series. As a major motion picture it won’t work. STB underperformed with full crew. Paramount won’t film a movie without Kirk.

 

Maybe you're right. But who within or outside Paramount can be certain that there's sufficient audience interest in a fourth movie with the current cast? It's anyone's guess whether Paramount's best chance of protecting the interests of its shareholders (primarily Natl. Amusements) is to proceed with production, or to sell the studio, or to sell the Trek movie property (to Universal, Sony, or Disney, presumably) and keep the studio.

Under the present circumstances, if there hadn't already been a Mission: Impossible movie ready for release this year, I don't think even a movie in that series would be approved for production today.

 

There can be situations where no one is in the wrong. There doesn't need to be a side.

Paramount isn't wrong for asking him to renegotiate his deal so the film makes more financial sense for them. Pine isn't in the wrong for wanting to stick to the original agreement. If the two sides come to a new agreement great. If not that's fine. It's just business.

 

If anyone had that magic formula, no movie would ever underperform or be a bomb. Movies are educated gambles, but gambles nonetheless.

I would imagine if Paramount is at the point of having hired a director and having the cast mostly signed, they already have the financing lined up and believe Star Trek 4 is a good bet to be profitable.

 

We're not talking about just a generic movie being greenlighted or not, but rather a movie series with a core ensemble cast. The closest similar example is the Star Trek movies of the 1980s. Those came in rather quick succession relative to the current series, with intervals of no more than 2 1/2 years. (So did the first three TNG movies.) It's possible to conclude that waiting too long after a third film that did middling business (as is happening now, and also happened after Insurrection) is all by itself poisonous to the prospects for a fourth movie - any fourth movie, no matter who the writers and director are - with the same cast.

Also, as is well known, plenty of movies have had writers and/or director announced yet never saw production.

 

Not sure that really means much. Look at how many DC movies get writers, directors and even cast members, yet never happen. Paramount has similar with Hasbro films that probaby won't ever come out.

If Paramount wants to invest less in Star Trek but still have their logo on it, just have CBS Television Studios do a prime movie at a smaller budget using the Toronto studios, and distribute it.

 

Lol, paramount and cbs are not exactly closest of allies right now, with the whole Redstone/Moonves thing. Let’s just say your idea is not going to happen.

 

Noone is right, noone is wrong. Where big money is concerned, both sides are entitled to haggle. Pine is a strong asset and that should be recognised but the studio shouldn't feel a prisoner of him either.

If I was the studio, I'd think Bond and wouldn't be afraid to re-tee the aesthetic and the tone into something new. It'd smooth the process of recasting if that needed to happen.

 

Money solves everything.

 

Like most of us, I suppose Peter "Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter" Noone is occasionally entitled to be both right and wrong about the same issue.

 

This kind of thing happens all the time. Both will be signing.

 

If Pine doesn't sign up again, I'll be amazed, shocked and astounded.

 

Just rewatched Beyond. 2 hours of noise.

 

Kirk will be back, and ST4 will come out (though maybe a bit delayed). Both parties are interested in it, no one has an interest in it falling apart - it only hinges on Paramount being cheapskates and reneging on existing deals.

They can't to that. And Pine is right to walk away. But if Paramount really wants to do the movie, they will. They just have to work out the fine print. If Paramount doesn't have the cash at hand now, they could give percentages of the box office. But they won't do that, because secretly they are hoping for a big hit, and want to cash all in. That's not going to work. JJTrek is not some Indie-movie actors will take a pay-cut for it ever being produces. It's a massive multi-million dollar blockbuster, whose stars want to be paid accordingly.

 

Another reason why it probably won't fall apart is that it won't look good for the first time female director of Trek not happening due to 2 white leading male hunks stopping it going ahead over not enough extra millions to add to their multimillions (CP/CH net worths - 20m/90m). Paramount won't want that image and neither will the actors

 

If what we're told is true, it's Paramount who are clearly at fault here. Pine's pay for ST4 was revealed ($16 million IIRC) when he and Quinto extended their contracts prior to Beyond's release.

Yes actors are paid ridiculous sums of money but if I agreed to that pay and then they tried to change it I'd walk out, too.


...and this from the biggest Kelvin universe fan on these bords who cannot wait to see Jim's Daddy issues resolved.

 

I'm of the opinion that neither side is in the wrong here. Over the years, Paramount has made many mistakes regarding Star Trek. MANY mistakes, but being forced to renegotiate a deal because it isn't financially possible isn't their fault.

If anything, maybe they should renegotiate with Abrams as well, since he failed to deliver to the financial potential.

Captain Kirk is the star of these movies, not Chris Pine though. I would 100 percent recast without batting an eye.

Star Trek made Chris Pine a star, Chris Pine did not make Star Trek a franchise. That's not a knock on Pine, it's a reality. Pine will be in good shape no matter what. I do get his issue, and hold no negative feelings toward him by this decision. Of course, I can't comprehend walking away from an 8 figure deal, or even a 7 figure deal, to play Captain Kirk, but that should NOT hold up the future of the franchise.

 

Agreed. Witness the contractual hell required to pave the way for the Hobbit movies. If there's money to be made, legal/rights entanglements can be resolved.

 

If that's their mentality then they can just recast both of them as female.

 

I honestly don't think that the female director thing should have anything to do with it. I couldn't care less who the director is as long as the movie is good. A female director making a bad movie is a lot worse than a female director making no movie.