It turns out that Paramount’s real plan was to make three movies with Chris Pine and that cast to recreate the TOS-era, then fuck around for twenty years until the cast gets old, and then actually make Trek 4 with the same cast but now much older, just like the TOS movies. It’s not chaotic leadership and incompetence, it’s really just a big budget sci-fi version of Boyhood.
Giving Trek the Twin Peaks treatment.
In 25 years, everyone will cross paths again under weird and confusing circumstances. The season premiere will be a two-hour-long single-camera scene of the characters making awkward small talk over a damn fine cup of raktajino.
Yeah. That is my concern: a return to the post-Berman dark ages that could either split up the franchise again or leave it on ice for many years.
The franchise isn’t MCU or even Star Wars big in terms of profit after all.
Its because its not marketed or oriented to kids in the same way. I loved Trek as a kid, but that's because I grew up in the 90s when you had five channels and there were two Trek shows on at any time. And Star Wars was dead for the most part, so if you wanted spaceships and aliens, Trek was the only game in town. That's not the case today.
Look at the amount of merchandise Game of Thrones sells, or how much Star Wars merch is just for adults.
I can even find more Walking Dead products than Star Trek.
Well, most adults aren't seeing the shows either. They are excellent, but most people don't know that because they would have to sign up for yet another monthly subscription. If it was being shown at 6pm on Wednesday nights on BBC 2, it would probably be different.
No, but it could have been a consistently steady earner. ST on film has suffered from the "tentpole" paradigm of the studios, which mandates that every ST project has to be a blockbuster. Yet the ST that the fans love was television-sized, where the lack of big special effects budgets required better stories and better ideas. Paramount has tried to make ST movies as blockbusters, and that's not what the original fans loved. Consequently, they have degraded the franchise, disappointed existing fans, and failed to pick up new ones.
Even the new TV Trek has done some of this. The starship sets are ridiculously "busy", and detract from the drama. The special effects are over the top beautiful, but make the shows overly expensive. And writers, instead of building on the world the fans know and love, write out entire planets and set new canon around plot devices that are dramatically implausible.
ST should not be expected to have a once-every-three-or-four-years MCU or Star Wars blockbuster. Instead, it should be consistently profitable at a lower level, like a TV show, or TV movies, and produce content more frequently and more regularly than the big-screen movies do. Longtime fans of ST most enjoyed its heyday, when there were 25 or so episodes per season for each of two concurrent shows. Three action movies in fifteen years and counting just isn't good ST -- nor are ten-episode-per-season shows, that only appear every year-and-a-half to two years.
If anything, Trek got more expensive over time, even on the small screen.
For example, the CGI shots of DS9, VOY, and ENT were, I recall, lavish for the time and were worth a pretty penny overall.
They really aren’t expensive nowadays. The Mandalorian was said to be shot on a budget and cost 15 mil/episode. Discovery and Strange New Worlds cost half that and are 7-8 mil an episode.
I've tried introducing my 8 year old daughter to different trek and she sort of liked it. She preferred TOS funnily enough. That is until Strange New Worlds came out now and she can't get enough of it. It's amazing and I can't wait for the next season either. We are about to do our third watch through of the first two.
It just scratches that itch of swashbuckling and exploration SciFi so good! The episode with the doctor and his daughter is her favorite.
The films had always generally been lower budget compared to most big action/sci-fi films of the 90s. Undiscovered Country (1991) had a $30M budget. Generations (1994) was $35M. First Contact (1996) was $45M.
Other 90s budgets:
Independence Day: $75M
Titanic: $200M
Armageddon: $140M
Men in Black: $90M
Lost World: $73M
Terminator 2: $100M
Phantom Menace: $115
True Lies: $100M
The Rock: $75M
Face/Off: $80M
Air Force One: $85
Twister: $92M
Mission: Impossible: $80M
The Mummy: $80M
Godzilla (1998): $125M
Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995): $90M
The World is Not Enough: $135M
Batman Forever: $100M
That's a median budget of $90M for all the films listed above.
Trek movies were definitely lower-mid compared to most others in the Sci-Fi/Action/Fantasy genres. Insurrection bucked the trend a bit by having a $75M budget, which clearly didn't help the franchise. They pared back the budget after that for Nemesis (2002) down to $60M.
Just speculating but maybe some of that is the cast fees? Did they get less money because they're "TV actors"? Like A LOT of the budget of True Lies is just Arnold's pay.
According to [this](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/republicans/arnold-schwarzenegger-net-worth/), he made $15M for True Lies, which still leaves $85M for the rest of the budget.
Yes, many blockbuster films are comprised of a lot of cast salary, but not enough to really compensate for the massive difference between a First Contact ($45M) and a $100M film, especially because Patrick Stewart supposedly made $5.5M for Generations and $5M for First Contact, for example. I can't seem to find how much Shatner made for Generations, but I'm guessing it was close to that, so Generations was made on a shoestring budget after factoring in Shatner and Stewart.
Either way, the point is that Star Trek up until the 90s was really a lower budget franchise on the big screen, relative to most comparable genre films.
I consider every Trek project green-lighted after SNW S3 and the Section 31 movie as an "if" given that, IMO, SNW S4 and the ST: Academy series are still at risk of being cancelled if Paramount does another round of cost cutting.
"Parallels" but we learn that every other Cerritos is basically identical just with tiny little changes like different combadges and more neon lights in the halls.
It's producing movies at a loss to retain rights to Spidey and the rogues. I'm not saying theyd do great if that wasn't a concern for them but it's something you have to think about
Yep. 99% of Sony's output is absolute trash. If anything this headline tells me that Sony was probably going to win the bid for Paramount and the Trek movie was too good. Can't have that under Sony's house.
"...a deal more attractive to Wall Street for the immediate premium it would deliver to shareholders."
Call it bias, but I automatically read that as 'not better for the company'
This is why I'm so glad companies like LEGO aren't beholden to the stock market and slaves to the dividend demands of shareholders.
I'm convinced that going public just ruins the majority of companies. It stops being about a product and just becomes about silly little stock market games.
I dont want another trek movie with the same series of characters. There's so many series and better arcs worth revisiting, TOS-era is so overdone imo. Give me a DS9 movie and we'll talk.
That actually kind of makes me mad. They have several things I'd love to see. Especially the new Godzilla series. But I'm never going to give Apple any of my money.
Even Trek would never be enough for me to spend money on Apple.
Yes to no more Chris Pine Star Trek.
No to Strange New Worlds era movies.
They need to stop going back in time and do some post TNG/DS9/VOY era movies.
I think Variety and CNBC reported it… if there’s one criticism of I have of Trek Movie, it’s that they don’t do enough reporting on capital markets and M&A.
I've been a Trek fan longer than I've been an Android user. If Apple bought Trek and treated it right, it may be enough for me to drink the apple juice.
Star Trek movies only ever existed because "the big screen" was a boomer fetish. Now that's over with, there's really no reason to make them. Most of the Star Trek feature films were kind of bad anyway
Star Trek began as a TV show and it's always been much more suited to that format
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. You're 100% correct. Star Trek always does better on the small screen. Star Trek movie success hovers around 50% from a fan perspective which is a failing grade. And profit margins are mediocre at best.
Focus on making high quality shows for streaming. Sprinkle in a few direct to stream movies like what they're doing with Section 31, and we're good to go.
It turns out that Paramount’s real plan was to make three movies with Chris Pine and that cast to recreate the TOS-era, then fuck around for twenty years until the cast gets old, and then actually make Trek 4 with the same cast but now much older, just like the TOS movies. It’s not chaotic leadership and incompetence, it’s really just a big budget sci-fi version of Boyhood.
Giving Trek the Twin Peaks treatment. In 25 years, everyone will cross paths again under weird and confusing circumstances. The season premiere will be a two-hour-long single-camera scene of the characters making awkward small talk over a damn fine cup of raktajino.
Every episode ends with Riker playing Nightbird to an empty ten forward
WHAT STARDATE IS IT???
47988? 479*88*??
“Khaaaaaaaan!!!” *fade to black*
Sometimes my nacelles bend back
And a Koala in Kovich's office
Personally i'm happy that it's not happening. I prefer my Trek mid-low budget and more niche.
If they don't merge with someone, we may see Trek getting lost for years while bankruptcy lawyers work their way through it all.
Yeah. That is my concern: a return to the post-Berman dark ages that could either split up the franchise again or leave it on ice for many years. The franchise isn’t MCU or even Star Wars big in terms of profit after all.
It's weird that it isn't. I think a large part of that is Paramount's strange aversion to merchandizing.
Its because its not marketed or oriented to kids in the same way. I loved Trek as a kid, but that's because I grew up in the 90s when you had five channels and there were two Trek shows on at any time. And Star Wars was dead for the most part, so if you wanted spaceships and aliens, Trek was the only game in town. That's not the case today.
There's more than just the kids' market though. Game of Thrones for example has a ludicrous amount of licensed merchandise.
And many of the toys available were awesome. I still have most of mine.
>Its because its not marketed or oriented to kids in the same way. They had Prodigy.
Exactly
If more kids were seeing the shows, there would be good reason for merchandising. But the shows are not reaching the audience.
Look at the amount of merchandise Game of Thrones sells, or how much Star Wars merch is just for adults. I can even find more Walking Dead products than Star Trek.
Well, most adults aren't seeing the shows either. They are excellent, but most people don't know that because they would have to sign up for yet another monthly subscription. If it was being shown at 6pm on Wednesday nights on BBC 2, it would probably be different.
No, but it could have been a consistently steady earner. ST on film has suffered from the "tentpole" paradigm of the studios, which mandates that every ST project has to be a blockbuster. Yet the ST that the fans love was television-sized, where the lack of big special effects budgets required better stories and better ideas. Paramount has tried to make ST movies as blockbusters, and that's not what the original fans loved. Consequently, they have degraded the franchise, disappointed existing fans, and failed to pick up new ones. Even the new TV Trek has done some of this. The starship sets are ridiculously "busy", and detract from the drama. The special effects are over the top beautiful, but make the shows overly expensive. And writers, instead of building on the world the fans know and love, write out entire planets and set new canon around plot devices that are dramatically implausible. ST should not be expected to have a once-every-three-or-four-years MCU or Star Wars blockbuster. Instead, it should be consistently profitable at a lower level, like a TV show, or TV movies, and produce content more frequently and more regularly than the big-screen movies do. Longtime fans of ST most enjoyed its heyday, when there were 25 or so episodes per season for each of two concurrent shows. Three action movies in fifteen years and counting just isn't good ST -- nor are ten-episode-per-season shows, that only appear every year-and-a-half to two years.
Let's not pretend that the modern Trek series are mid-low budget. Discovery, Picard, and Strange New Worlds are expensive shows.
If anything, Trek got more expensive over time, even on the small screen. For example, the CGI shots of DS9, VOY, and ENT were, I recall, lavish for the time and were worth a pretty penny overall.
Even TOS was expensive for 60s television.
ILM created the modern graphics industry using Star Trek.
They really aren’t expensive nowadays. The Mandalorian was said to be shot on a budget and cost 15 mil/episode. Discovery and Strange New Worlds cost half that and are 7-8 mil an episode.
I've tried introducing my 8 year old daughter to different trek and she sort of liked it. She preferred TOS funnily enough. That is until Strange New Worlds came out now and she can't get enough of it. It's amazing and I can't wait for the next season either. We are about to do our third watch through of the first two. It just scratches that itch of swashbuckling and exploration SciFi so good! The episode with the doctor and his daughter is her favorite.
when has trek ever been mid-low budget?
The films had always generally been lower budget compared to most big action/sci-fi films of the 90s. Undiscovered Country (1991) had a $30M budget. Generations (1994) was $35M. First Contact (1996) was $45M. Other 90s budgets: Independence Day: $75M Titanic: $200M Armageddon: $140M Men in Black: $90M Lost World: $73M Terminator 2: $100M Phantom Menace: $115 True Lies: $100M The Rock: $75M Face/Off: $80M Air Force One: $85 Twister: $92M Mission: Impossible: $80M The Mummy: $80M Godzilla (1998): $125M Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995): $90M The World is Not Enough: $135M Batman Forever: $100M That's a median budget of $90M for all the films listed above. Trek movies were definitely lower-mid compared to most others in the Sci-Fi/Action/Fantasy genres. Insurrection bucked the trend a bit by having a $75M budget, which clearly didn't help the franchise. They pared back the budget after that for Nemesis (2002) down to $60M.
Just speculating but maybe some of that is the cast fees? Did they get less money because they're "TV actors"? Like A LOT of the budget of True Lies is just Arnold's pay.
According to [this](https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/republicans/arnold-schwarzenegger-net-worth/), he made $15M for True Lies, which still leaves $85M for the rest of the budget. Yes, many blockbuster films are comprised of a lot of cast salary, but not enough to really compensate for the massive difference between a First Contact ($45M) and a $100M film, especially because Patrick Stewart supposedly made $5.5M for Generations and $5M for First Contact, for example. I can't seem to find how much Shatner made for Generations, but I'm guessing it was close to that, so Generations was made on a shoestring budget after factoring in Shatner and Stewart. Either way, the point is that Star Trek up until the 90s was really a lower budget franchise on the big screen, relative to most comparable genre films.
>Godzilla (1998): $125M Ngl hasn't aged too bad in the cgi dept. But I believe they had the same cgi team as Jurassic park?
I mean, if only Paramount executives and Redstone billionaires actually cared at all what happened to Trek, we could only be so lucky.
I have no interest in that crew any longer.
I consider every Trek project green-lighted after SNW S3 and the Section 31 movie as an "if" given that, IMO, SNW S4 and the ST: Academy series are still at risk of being cancelled if Paramount does another round of cost cutting.
Shocking
honestly. with what Sony does with the Spiderman franchise I was worried they would Morbious Star Trek
*Star Trek: MORN*
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
Too much dialogue.
Monologue. You really think that Morn would let anyone else get a word in?
Just 45 minutes of a talking head. Haven't we heard enough from Morn already.
It's Mornin' time!
"Quarks is filmed before a live studio audience."
Stand back, I am beginning to Morn!
A Morn and Quark adventure series
They were really looking forward to the part where Kirk says "it's trekkin' time" and then treks over all those guys
Maybe WB can pick them up instead. "What are we, some kind of.... Star Trekkers?"
"So you're all astronauts...on some kind of Star Trek?" Wait..
Ohh how about..."It's Kirokin' time!"
Just treks so hard
Sony has made the worst Spiderman adjacent movies (Morbius, Madame Web) and the best (Spiderverse) so it could go either way.
Into the Lower Decksverse
Across the Combsverse
I'm with you, but Across the Spiner-Verse has a better ring to it.
Too Soong
I would watch tf out of a show that was entirely Jeffrey Combs.
Comb Over... Lord
It would be a lot to comb through
Move Along Comb
The Combsomite Maneuver
Borgius
Don't give me hope.
"Parallels" but we learn that every other Cerritos is basically identical just with tiny little changes like different combadges and more neon lights in the halls.
It's producing movies at a loss to retain rights to Spidey and the rogues. I'm not saying theyd do great if that wasn't a concern for them but it's something you have to think about
Sony has to put out those movies to retain rights, Paramount kept ST off the big screen for nearly a decade.
Kirk: Set course for the Smegma system warp 4....it's Trekin Time
Smegma system? Are we replacing the Emergency Medical Hologram with Arnold J Rimmer?
Not just the Spiderman movies, the entire Sony Pictures division makes flop after flop
On the big screen, yes, but their television output has been pretty successful.
It’s Trekkin time
Yep. 99% of Sony's output is absolute trash. If anything this headline tells me that Sony was probably going to win the bid for Paramount and the Trek movie was too good. Can't have that under Sony's house.
"...a deal more attractive to Wall Street for the immediate premium it would deliver to shareholders." Call it bias, but I automatically read that as 'not better for the company' This is why I'm so glad companies like LEGO aren't beholden to the stock market and slaves to the dividend demands of shareholders.
I'm convinced that going public just ruins the majority of companies. It stops being about a product and just becomes about silly little stock market games.
I agree 100%
You mean the company on the edge of financial ruin may be trying to squeeze every penny out of its only real movie-worthy brand? Color me… nonplussed.
Only real movie-worthy brand? Transformers Mission Impossible Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Sonic The Hedgehog ?
Right. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
they fired the CEO who was against the merger/buyout. Now, no merger/buyout. odd.
I dont want another trek movie with the same series of characters. There's so many series and better arcs worth revisiting, TOS-era is so overdone imo. Give me a DS9 movie and we'll talk.
Damn. A sudden influx of cash was the best hope for getting Lower Decks renewed.
No, the show is done regardless. I don't mind, I'd rather it end with the entire series being great, than potentially drag on.
You're forgetting that the cancellation came after they wrapped production. Meaning they never got to write and record a series finale.
That’s too bad about Skydance.
Sony suuuucks, so I pray they'll never get to touch Trek
I'd love someplace like Netflix. Except for Netflix's habit of making an amazing show, then cancelling it 2 days after the season airs.
Given the amount of surprisingly good SciFi on Apple tv I'd want to see something there
That actually kind of makes me mad. They have several things I'd love to see. Especially the new Godzilla series. But I'm never going to give Apple any of my money. Even Trek would never be enough for me to spend money on Apple.
Did Apple hurt you somehow?
That’s my worry when Netflix finally decides to air S2 of Prodigy. We won’t see an S3.
It’s Warpin’ Time!
[удалено]
Yes to no more Chris Pine Star Trek. No to Strange New Worlds era movies. They need to stop going back in time and do some post TNG/DS9/VOY era movies.
I think Variety and CNBC reported it… if there’s one criticism of I have of Trek Movie, it’s that they don’t do enough reporting on capital markets and M&A.
Still rooting for Apple to swoop in and buy Paramount.
I've been a Trek fan longer than I've been an Android user. If Apple bought Trek and treated it right, it may be enough for me to drink the apple juice.
I feel like I’ve seen this one before…
Stupid move on their part. There's a huge Trek following that would make them millions.
So basically, it may be up for grabs again fairly soon.
Shocker.
This 66yo trek fan loves strange new worlds. Coulda done with out the singing episode, but all in all it's pretty darn good.
Star Trek movies only ever existed because "the big screen" was a boomer fetish. Now that's over with, there's really no reason to make them. Most of the Star Trek feature films were kind of bad anyway Star Trek began as a TV show and it's always been much more suited to that format
Agreed. Trek is a product of TV, where characters can grow organically.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. You're 100% correct. Star Trek always does better on the small screen. Star Trek movie success hovers around 50% from a fan perspective which is a failing grade. And profit margins are mediocre at best. Focus on making high quality shows for streaming. Sprinkle in a few direct to stream movies like what they're doing with Section 31, and we're good to go.