News The ongoing next Star Trek movie thread

[tomalak301]

Next year will be 10 years since we got Star Trek Beyond. I remember that year like it was yesterday, especially when Anton Yelchin unfortunately was killed. The fact that we haven't had another theatrical movie since has been frustrating, especially when the last movie we got was Section 31 and that was really really bad.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

well never say never. Look at Top Gun Maverick, Devil wears Prada 2 and the social
network part 2.

Obviously we do not know much about what is really going on but I will say Paramount may be struggling in some areas. Their stock is way below Disney WB.

SNW is not even getting a full final season, Prodigy got cancelled and so did Lower Decks, section 31 flopped in every possible way. So the current trek content do not seem all that strong.

I do not think trek is making enough money for them, so they make think of another thing and as of now I think the Kelvin cast as still more popular than any streaming trek stuff so they will still be their best bet.

what seems to be the problem is budget. I have seen Dune and that film did not cast up to 200m.

If they can make a trek 4 for 150 million and marketing it spectually well and the movie gets the critical acclaim of the 2009 film then it should be fine.

I like to say this but right now star trek 4 will be a breath of fresh air for summer films when you think that comic book movies are drying up at the box office. every comic book film this year all performed below expectations.

a star trek movie may be just what we need and I have a very good suspicion that if it ever happens. paramount will put distance from it away from streaming star trek like DC movies does with their DC TV CW show.

Sigh...I just want to see Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana again and Quinto and John Cho as well. what a cast they were. I only appreciate them more now after I have seen not better cast.

What thing I liked about Star Trek Beyond is how the characters were now more mature perhaps they can play on that like Top Gun did. Make a Kelvin trek 4 and pass on the touch to the next generation of new characters.

Top Gun was a legacy sequel to a beloved hit film from people's childhood. Hate to break it to folks, but ST09 was never a beloved hit film nor were either of the sequels. They were moderate successes that were viewed as fun trip to the movies and nothing more. Except for Beyond which actually failed. It's also still far too soon for the idea of a legacy sequel to be even remotely worth trying and the fact that multiple sequels already exist (with no more recent version having ever taken the spotlight from them) also undermines the sense of 'specialness' that makes a legacy sequel work. Plus, if the day ever does come, it still won't really be 'Star Trek 4' as it would almost certainly be missing half the cast (or more). That's par for the course with legacy sequels.

It is true that the problem is the budget. They gave these movies ridiculous budgets thinking they would be major contenders at the box office but they were consistently overshadowed by superheroes, dinosaurs and Jedi and by the third film the bottom just fell out completely. Giving a similar budget under these circumstances would be outright irresponsible. But there's not actually that much to be done about that. The Kelvin cast are -on average- vastly more expensive than any other Star Trek cast. And while you can try to pare down the cgi costs, the first three films established a pretty strong expectation of spectacle. There's really no good reason to believe general audiences would respond favorably to a new Kelvin movie that doesn't even try to deliver the spectacle they expect.

As for Star Trek being the fresh air people want as they turn away from superhero movies, that's really wishful thinking. Space adventure movies have been struggling longer than superhero movies. The fresh air people are turning to now is mostly video game and toy adaptations, and to a lesser extent movies that have an old school feel (old school as in 80s and 90s, not 2009). And regardless, it's already too late for that anyway. A hypothetical Trek film greenlit today won't hit theaters until 2027, maybe even 2028. And every day that passes without a green light that hypothetical release date gets pushed farther and farther into the future. The window of opportunity to define 'the next big genre' isn't going to stay open forever.

Also, just FYI, DC has officially completely abandoned their practice of keeping tv at a distance in favor of now having tv, animation and even video games all take place in the DCU movie world (with only a handful of exceptions).

 

[gabby1701]

Top Gun was a legacy sequel to a beloved hit film from people's childhood. Hate to break it to folks, but ST09 was never a beloved hit film nor were either of the sequels. They were moderate successes that were viewed as fun trip to the movies and nothing more. Except for Beyond which actually failed. It's also still far too soon for the idea of a legacy sequel to be even remotely worth trying and the fact that multiple sequels already exist (with no more recent version having ever taken the spotlight from them) also undermines the sense of 'specialness' that makes a legacy sequel work. Plus, if the day ever does come, it still won't really be 'Star Trek 4' as it would almost certainly be missing half the cast (or more). That's par for the course with legacy sequels.

It is true that the problem is the budget. They gave these movies ridiculous budgets thinking they would be major contenders at the box office but they were consistently overshadowed by superheroes, dinosaurs and Jedi and by the third film the bottom just fell out completely. Giving a similar budget under these circumstances would be outright irresponsible. But there's not actually that much to be done about that. The Kelvin cast are -on average- vastly more expensive than any other Star Trek cast. And while you can try to pare down the cgi costs, the first three films established a pretty strong expectation of spectacle. There's really no good reason to believe general audiences would respond favorably to a new Kelvin movie that doesn't even try to deliver the spectacle they expect.

As for Star Trek being the fresh air people want as they turn away from superhero movies, that's really wishful thinking. Space adventure movies have been struggling longer than superhero movies. The fresh air people are turning to now is mostly video game and toy adaptations, and to a lesser extent movies that have an old school feel (old school as in 80s and 90s, not 2009). And regardless, it's already too late for that anyway. A hypothetical Trek film greenlit today won't hit theaters until 2027, maybe even 2028. And every day that passes without a green light that hypothetical release date gets pushed farther and farther into the future. The window of opportunity to define 'the next big genre' isn't going to stay open forever.

Also, just FYI, DC has officially completely abandoned their practice of keeping tv at a distance in favor of now having tv, animation and even video games all take place in the DCU movie world (with only a handful of exceptions).

I disagree with star trek 2009. it was quite beloved when it came out and still is, in fact it was top gun the first film that had mixed reception and only saved by the sound track and tom cruise charisma. Top Gun 1 was seen as quite a mediocre to decent film when it was released in the 1980s. Star Trek 2009 was and still is very critically acclaimed.

the problem now is all about narrative. JJ Abrams unfairly has become a pariah in geek fandom so everyone now wants to to revisionist history and act like this man never directed anything good or he was always teletentless. No I think he did great work on Star Trek 2009, Super 8 and MI 3 and even star wars episode 7 given he had to work with a disney manufactured script that was always going to play it safe unlike star trek 2009 that took risks.

I am not going to play that game anymore and I think people should stop too. its crazy how much people loved star trek 2009 which by the way is still the most acclaimed trek content of the 2000s now they pretend they are hated because the man that destroyed star wars made them. what does that have to with anything here?

I am going to judge things by singularity. I still think with the right script and the cast there is still potential for success and also the right marketing, trust me I have watching the current trek content right now and it ain't close. do we want more section 31? a poor mcu film is better than that.

Star Trek Beyond was good but had two issues I would correct.

poor marketing
movie needed more intensity and high stakes. (JJ Abrams does this very well, 3rd arc for star trek 2009)

Maybe we will never know but one thing I will say for sure Paramount would be better off trying to figure out how they can make a star trek 4 than do more section 31 films.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I disagree with star trek 2009. it was quite beloved when it came out and still is, in fact it was top gun the first film that had mixed reception and only saved by the sound track and tom cruise charisma. Top Gun 1 was seen as quite a mediocre to decent film when it was released in the 1980s. Star Trek 2009 was and still is very critically acclaimed.

The fact that professional film critics were initially mixed on Top Gun doesn't mean much. Professional critics are pretty much always more mixed on over the top action flicks than the general audience is, and that does nothing to stop the general audience loving these movies anyway.

The truth is Top Gun was the highest grossing movie of 1986. It was a cultural event. Star Trek didn't even make the top ten in 2009. It lost out to not only Avatar and Harry Potter but also Ice Age, Transformers, Up, Sherlock Holmes, 2012, a Twilight movie, Angels & Demons, The Hangover, an Alvin and the Chimpmunks sequel, and a Night at the Smithsonian sequel. The people who actually cared enough to go see it may have loved it, but most people didn't bother.

the problem now is all about narrative. JJ Abrams unfairly has become a pariah in geek fandom so everyone now wants to to revisionist history and act like this man never directed anything good or he was always teletentless. No I think he did great work on Star Trek 2009, Super 8 and MI 3 and even star wars episode 7 given he had to work with a disney manufactured script that was always going to play it safe unlike star trek 2009 that took risks.

Abrams has nothing to do with my opinion. The Kelvin films were just middling successes until they failed completely, that's a simple fact. If it makes you feel any better, success and quality are never the same thing and personally I think Beyond 'deserved' to be the most successful of the series. I'd also say 09 based on quality alone 'deserved' to be far more successful than the Force Awakens. But that doesn't change what actually happened.

I am not going to play that game anymore and I think people should stop too. its crazy how much people loved star trek 2009 which by the way is still the most acclaimed trek content of the 2000s now they pretend they are hated because the man that destroyed star wars made them. what does that have to with anything here?

09's only competition in 2000s Trek content was Enterprise and Nemesis. Being the most acclaimed out of that bunch is not an accolade.

I am going to judge things by singularity. I still think with the right script and the cast there is still potential for success and also the right marketing, trust me I have watching the current trek content right now and it ain't close. do we want more section 31? a poor mcu film is better than that.

Star Trek Beyond was good but had two issues I would correct.

poor marketing
movie needed more intensity and high stakes. (JJ Abrams does this very well, 3rd arc for star trek 2009)

Maybe we will never know but one thing I will say for sure Paramount would be better off trying to figure out how they can make a star trek 4 than do more section 31 films.

More Section 31 seems pretty obviously just as much out of the question as Star Trek 4. They just tried it and literally no one liked it, so why would they do the same thing again? And these are obviously not the only possibilities, so acting like this is somehow a meaningful reason why they 'should' do ST4 is just nonsense. The best thing they can do at this point is just move on and try something new. And at this point in the life of the franchise, literally almost any concept except ST4 or S31 would qualify as trying something new, so it's a near certainty that that's what actually will happen whenever they finally manage to start moving forward again.

 

[HotRod]

I disagree with star trek 2009. it was quite beloved when it came out and still is, in fact it was top gun the first film that had mixed reception and only saved by the sound track and tom cruise charisma. Top Gun 1 was seen as quite a mediocre to decent film when it was released in the 1980s. Star Trek 2009 was and still is very critically acclaimed.

I generally really like the Kelvin films, but comparing their cultural, financial, or critical impact to Top Gun is sheer lunacy.

 

[Set Harth]

It was a cultural event.

Some guys in my school even did the whole Righteous Brothers bit in class one day.

09's only competition in 2000s Trek content was Enterprise and Nemesis. Being the most acclaimed out of that bunch is not an accolade.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Top Gun was a legacy sequel to a beloved hit film from people's childhood. Hate to break it to folks, but ST09 was never a beloved hit film nor were either of the sequels.

ST'09 was the #6 best selling bluray of all-time for quite awhile. That's insane.

 

[gabby1701]

I generally really like the Kelvin films, but comparing their cultural, financial, or critical impact to Top Gun is sheer lunacy.

is not lunacy, I said the movie review was mixed and was mostly famous for tom cruise and the song take my breath away. the sequel is actually were the series finally got critically acclaim.
also, I was not comparing them equally since star trek 2009 was already part of a franchise that does have more impact than top gun.

 

[gabby1701]

ST'09 was the #6 best selling bluray of all-time for quite awhile. That's insane.

trek 2009 was definitely a huge that year and I recall sfx magazine naming it as the best sci fi movie of the decade. I remember that list well because

harry potter was named best franchise of the decade
the dark knight was named best superhero movie of the decade
lord of the rings was named best trilogy of the decade.

star trek 2009 did have a huge impact. I was a baby in 1986 so I do not know enough about top gun to compare but I did see it in pop culture often.

what I do know is there is still a chance that star trek 4 can pull a top gun maverick or a Logan in terms of a swan song that will be well fitting for the kelvin cast.

the kelvin cast deserve the whole world.

 

[HotRod]

is not lunacy, I said the movie review was mixed and was mostly famous for tom cruise and the song take my breath away. the sequel is actually were the series finally got critically acclaim.
also, I was not comparing them equally since star trek 2009 was already part of a franchise that does have more impact than top gun.

I'm guessing you're on the younger side. Granted, I'm only 41, but even I can remember what a cultural event that film was to the late 80s, into the 90s. The U.S.N. saw a massive recruitment boost, Aviator sun glasses were everywhere. Every kid was in love with the F-14 Tomcat. It's still heralded as a pinnacle of '80s movies. You are so far off the mark, it's comical.

 

[Set Harth]

I think he did great work on Star Trek 2009, Super 8 and MI 3 and even star wars episode 7 given he had to work with a disney manufactured script that was always going to play it safe unlike star trek 2009 that took risks.

I don't know if I would use the term "play it safe" to describe killing off Han before the 'big 3' even got the chance to have any more screen time together.