Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag

[jaime]

I think it needs to have a bit of a 'deeper' storyline compared to the others to distinguish it and get it a decent reputation. I want to see something a little more creative this time, the franchise deserves it, and I think the reduced budget will likely force that kind of thinking.

Don't get me wrong I'd love there to be 200 million dollars available but we are where we are. Putting out an engaging film with limited resources is a hallmark of the series when you think about it.

The biggest problem is they painted themselves into an expensive corner last out. New ship. That means new sets would be likely expected, posssibly a new cgi model too.
In terms of a deeper storyline, maybe they need to start moving their characters into something like their movie era.
‘Deeper’ doesn’t preclude a family audience. I really think they need to cast that net as wide as they can.

 

[Syd Shanshala]

It’s strange to me how the idea for this movie has been around since Beyond’s release. The whole, bring back Hemsworth for even more mopey daddy issues just doesn’t seem as great an idea as it’s been made out to be.

It’s like some executive came up with that “brilliant” idea as a way to bring Marvel fans in to see Trek4, but didn’t realize how much Hemsworth would cost. And now that Beyond’s figures are in and they need to pay Pine AND Hemsworth large amounts of money to get them to even play ball, plus paying the other A/B list actors that make up the crew, they just don’t want to pay this much for Trek and are in full on panic mode.

They already hired a semi unknown female director who obviously didn’t cost as much as Abrams or Lin, and now she has to take on a script about father son issues, which I realize can absolutely be done but it just seems odd. All of this just puzzles me. Paramount backed themselves into a corner and should probably drop all of this and start on Trek4 again from scratch.

 

[jaime]

It’s strange to me how the idea for this movie has been around since Beyond’s release. The whole, bring back Hemsworth for even more mopey daddy issues just doesn’t seem as great an idea as it’s been made out to be.

It’s like some executive came up with that “brilliant” idea as a way to bring Marvel fans in to see Trek4, but didn’t realize how much Hemsworth would cost. And now that Beyond’s figures are in and they need to pay Pine AND Hemsworth large amounts of money to get them to even play ball, plus paying the other A/B list actors that make up the crew, they just don’t want to pay this much for Trek and are in full on panic mode.

They already hired a semi unknown female director who obviously didn’t cost as much as Abrams or Lin, and now she has to take on a script about father son issues, which I realize can absolutely be done but it just seems odd. All of this just puzzles me. Paramount backed themselves into a corner and should probably drop all of this and start on Trek4 again from scratch.

It could end up being city on the edge of forever with father son bonding instead of of Edith Keeler.
I see no reason why a female director couldn’t do a fine job, but then, I don’t imagine a male director would anything but a decent job of mother and daughter bonding in a film. In SF, the Newt/Ripley relationship worked fine in its film. XD
Is it odd? Only in this century, where such things mean Gods of Egypt was always gonna fail, what with their being no ancient Egyptians around any more, so it would no doubt lack authenticity even before we got to the bit with the birds pulling airships, people bleeding gold, being giants, and living on a flat earth. Ho hum.

The studio is in a bind, rather literally, but if they don’t aim for summer blockbuster with necessary boom, they can make decent film and do well out of it. Maybe they will go more cerebral...BR2049, interstellar, passengers et al has proved there’s an audience for it, or critical acclaim to be had at the very least.
2.5 hours of a tripping out near death Kirk, meeting apparitions of the rest of the crew in abandoned enterprise, culminating in meeting Shatner Kirk as Shatner is now and his own father...that would be cheap, could be deep, and would be so true to TOS it would be decried for it by half the fandom, and slathered over by the other.

 

[Syd Shanshala]

It could end up being city on the edge of forever with father son bonding instead of of Edith Keeler.
I see no reason why a female director couldn’t do a fine job, but then, I don’t imagine a male director would anything but a decent job of mother and daughter bonding in a film. In SF, the Newt/Ripley relationship worked fine in its film. XD
Is it odd? Only in this century, where such things mean Gods of Egypt was always gonna fail, what with their being no ancient Egyptians around any more, so it would no doubt lack authenticity even before we got to the bit with the birds pulling airships, people bleeding gold, being giants, and living on a flat earth. Ho hum.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant there. They made a big deal out of having a female director, and then lay a father son story on her. That just rings odd to me. Maybe she could bring an even better aspect to it because of that. I certainly have no doubt whatsoever in her ability to direct the movie.

 

[Smellmet]

It’s strange to me how the idea for this movie has been around since Beyond’s release. The whole, bring back Hemsworth for even more mopey daddy issues just doesn’t seem as great an idea as it’s been made out to be.

It’s like some executive came up with that “brilliant” idea as a way to bring Marvel fans in to see Trek4, but didn’t realize how much Hemsworth would cost. And now that Beyond’s figures are in and they need to pay Pine AND Hemsworth large amounts of money to get them to even play ball, plus paying the other A/B list actors that make up the crew, they just don’t want to pay this much for Trek and are in full on panic mode.

They already hired a semi unknown female director who obviously didn’t cost as much as Abrams or Lin, and now she has to take on a script about father son issues, which I realize can absolutely be done but it just seems odd. All of this just puzzles me. Paramount backed themselves into a corner and should probably drop all of this and start on Trek4 again from scratch.

I think you're absolutely bang on with this. It just doesn't seem to have a clear vision, more like 'grasping at straws with less money'

Compare this to other franchises where it's an arcing storyline introducing characters on the way through it.

It's just reactionary every time instead of building stuff.

 

[jaime]

I think you're absolutely bang on with this. It just doesn't seem to have a clear vision, more like 'grasping at straws with less money'

Compare this to other franchises where it's an arcing storyline introducing characters on the way through it.

It's just reactionary every time instead of building stuff.

Ironically, the original movies literally made it up as they went along, yet ended up with an overarching story, essentially, with new characters.

 

[Ovation]

BR2049

Critical darling--NOT a money-maker.

 

[Smellmet]

Ironically, the original movies literally made it up as they went along, yet ended up with an overarching story, essentially, with new characters.

Only to a point. TMP and TFF were largely disconnected to the others, but I see your point still. The genesis trilogy stands out here, and despite all three films having different styles still managed to tell a great story, and remains a highlight of movie trek.

However I view modern blockbusters slightly differently, I think modern audiences dig the various sandboxes of a lot of franchises, and like interconnected stories and universes. I think that is a factor in beyond's relative failure. It was a 'who cares' kind of story.

 

[johnjm22]

I think it needs to have a bit of a 'deeper' storyline compared to the others to distinguish it and get it a decent reputation. I want to see something a little more creative this time, the franchise deserves it, and I think the reduced budget will likely force that kind of thinking.

Yes. Absolutely. That's why I'm happy the budget is being cut.

Don't get me wrong I'd love there to be 200 million dollars available but we are where we are.

This seems to contradict your previous paragraph.

Another 200M budget film is just going to give us more of the same. It will get squandered on gratuitous boring action sequences that will take away character time from the film.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

If the Kelvin films had become box office behemoths on the level of TRANSFORMERS, as Paramount originally counted on, I'm sure they never would have considered any kind of cost cutting. However, Trek was never going to become billion dollar hit films the way Paramount had been running them. More importantly, they simply needed a much stronger second film than what they delivered with STID. MAYBE if STID had come out in 2011 it would have not been seen as such an underwhelming follow up after a four year wait. Then in 2013 BEYOND would have still coasted on the goodwill of that first film as it was still relatively fresh, whereas by 2016 it had been seven years and nothing in between really made audiences enthused for another Trek film.

 

[Smellmet]

Yes. Absolutely. That's why I'm happy the budget is being cut.


This seems to contradict your previous paragraph.

Another 200M budget film is just going to give us more of the same. It will get squandered on gratuitous boring action sequences that will take away character time from the film.

Let's face it, the budget is being cut, there's no question of that. Hopefully it will force them into something a bit more creative. It worked with TWOK, they worked wonders with SW77 with the budget that had etc.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have more money to do it though. Either way I think this film will have a budget around 120m. You can still get a fair bit of spectacle for that kind of money.

 

[Ovation]

MAYBE if STID had come out in 2011 it would have not been seen as such an underwhelming follow up after a four year wait. Then in 2013 BEYOND would have still coasted on the goodwill of that first film as it was still relatively fresh, whereas by 2016 it had been seven years and nothing in between really made audiences enthused for another Trek film.

This is a narrative that only a subset of rather hardcore Trek fans have swallowed. It is not supported by the facts. Into Darkness remains the most successful box office draw in Trek and has the highest critical reviews. To beancounters at Paramount, that is more important than whether some small, vocal minority of "fans" found it disappointing.

 

[johnjm22]

This is a narrative that only a subset of rather hardcore Trek fans have swallowed. It is not supported by the facts. Into Darkness remains the most successful box office draw in Trek and has the highest critical reviews. To beancounters at Paramount, that is more important than whether some small, vocal minority of "fans" found it disappointing.

It's not the most successful box office draw in Trek. It only did more than ST09 because Paramount spent more money pushing it it oversees which they didn't do with ST09. It didn't even perform as well as ST09 domestically. It also doesn't have the highest critical reviews. You can find plenty of press about how STiD isn't a good film in retrospect.

The move was dumb and forgettable and is part of the reason there was no hype for the franchise after people had time to digest it.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

This is a narrative that only a subset of rather hardcore Trek fans have swallowed. It is not supported by the facts. Into Darkness remains the most successful box office draw in Trek and has the highest critical reviews. To beancounters at Paramount, that is more important than whether some small, vocal minority of "fans" found it disappointing.

I'm not talking about nuTrek haters trying to push a narrative. Let me be clear, I'm not talking about a subset of fans proclaiming it the worst of the series and all that ridiculous hyperbole. I'm strictly talking about STID as a movie and as a follow up to ST09. The sentiment of STID being a relative critical disappointment after ST09 is something I've seen expressed over the years beyond Trekdom (which I consider its own bubble). However glowing the initial reviews were during its release, it's not carrying over throughout the years in the way that ST09's has remained. It's not incidental that BEYOND had such an underwhelming impact at the box office following STID. It's also not incidental that STID did as well as it did at the box office, as it was following a very popular Star Trek film (and the international market grew between the four years, which should be addressed).

STID had a lot of advantages to excel beyond the first film, and it didn't really push the franchise enough to have a more prosperous future. But if you insist STID did no wrong, fine, I won't stop you from pushing that narrative.

 

[Ovation]

It's not the most successful box office draw in Trek. It only did more than ST09 because Paramount spent more money pushing it it oversees which they didn't do with ST09. It didn't even perform as well as ST09 domestically. It also doesn't have the highest critical reviews. You can find plenty of press about how STiD isn't a good film in retrospect.

The move was dumb and forgettable and is part of the reason there was no hype for the franchise after people had time to digest it.

It brought in more money than any other Trek movie--thus most box office.

It has the second highest critical reviews, so I stand corrected on that point.

More to the point, it was a profitable, highly popular movie with the general audience and critics--NOTHING remotely like the "one of the worst Trek movies" narrative that circulates in a few corners of the internet.

 

[Ovation]

I'm not talking about nuTrek haters trying to push a narrative. Let me be clear, I'm not talking about a subset of fans proclaiming it the worst of the series and all that ridiculous hyperbole. I'm strictly talking about STID as a movie and as a follow up to ST09. The sentiment of STID being a relative critical disappointment after ST09 is something I've seen expressed over the years beyond Trekdom (which I consider its own bubble). However glowing the initial reviews were during its release, it's not carrying over throughout the years in the way that ST09's has remained. It's not incidental that BEYOND had such an underwhelming impact at the box office following STID. It's also not incidental that STID did as well as it did at the box office, as it was following a very popular Star Trek film (and the international market grew between the four years, which should be addressed).

STID had a lot of advantages to excel beyond the first film, and it didn't really push the franchise enough to have a more prosperous future. But if you insist STID did no wrong, fine, I won't stop you from pushing that narrative.

"Did no wrong" is a rather absurd characterization of my points. I simply object to the notion (for which there is no factual basis) that the film was not commercially and critically successful, as well as very popular with the general audience. No more, no less.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Yeah, the notion that hiring the septugenarian star of a property that ended fifteen years ago constitutes "looking ahead" in any way that matters is arrant nonsense.

It's nice that they're making a Picard show, but I don't really care.

Me neither. And pardon me, but I thought that Stewart was done and finished with Picard? Why does he want to come back as Picard now?

As for this money issue with Helmsworth and Pine, Paramount can cut costs and pay them their raises by:

1. Cutting the bloated executive salaries (institute a salary cap as in the NFL and NHL-this can also be done at the other studios as well)
2. Ending the Transformers franchise (although I like the new Bumblebee spinoff/prequel with Hailee Steinfeld coming out later this year and hope that it succeeds.)

I apologize, Captain, but the complexities of human pranks escape me.*



*And I said this because that's what this feels like to me.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It's not the most successful box office draw in Trek. It only did more than ST09 because Paramount spent more money pushing it it oversees which they didn't do with ST09. It didn't even perform as well as ST09 domestically. It also doesn't have the highest critical reviews. You can find plenty of press about how STiD isn't a good film in retrospect.

Also worth noting that even the increase in ticket prices via 3D didn't help the film overtake its predecessor at the domestic box office. It wasn't even close.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Huh? 257m vs. 228m is a difference of 8%.

How is that not close?

When you consider factors like inflation, 3D tickets, and an increased budget. Domestically, STID fell below it’s predecessor.

Note that I did not at any point proclaim it “worst Trek ever” or any other ridiculous fanboy hyperbole.

 

[johnjm22]

It brought in more money than any other Trek movie--thus most box office.

Incorrect. You have to adjust for inflation and even then it's not a perfect metric because of the population variance.

It's not anywhere near the most success Trek movie financially. To put it into perspective TWOK had the highest open weekend of all time, of any movie, EVER when it came out.

It has the second highest critical reviews, so I stand corrected on that point.

There's a recency bias with critics (and moviegoers). To illustrate my point, do you actually think STB, STID & ST09 are all better films than TWOK?

More to the point, it was a profitable, highly popular movie with the general audience and critics--NOTHING remotely like the "one of the worst Trek movies" narrative that circulates in a few corners of the internet.

This is an opinion. If was so well liked than the franchise wouldn't have run out of steam immediately after it was put out and there wouldn't be countless press about its problems.