Jump to content

Star Trek 4 Has Been 'Shelved'


Recommended Posts

https://www.cbr.com/report-star-trek-4-shelved/?

 

Quote

Star Trek fans are in for a bit of bad news. The long-gestating Star Trek 4, the planned sequel to 2016's Star Trek Beyond, appears to have been put on indefinite hold.

 

The news comes from Deadline, who's reporting that the movie has been shelved following the departure of its director, SJ Clarkson, who has just been recruited by HBO to helm and executive produce its secretive Game of Thrones spinoff/prequel pilot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Trek Into Darkness is an awful film so Star Trek Beyond by default is second best of the nu-universe Star Trek films. I enjoyed Beyond, but its first half is a lot better than its second half. Was a definite step up in terms of character and story over Into Darkness though.

 

I'm sad to see Star Trek 4 get shelved over something like this - would have been curious to see that cast together for another sci-fi adventure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Jason said:

Man, I can't imagine why these movies turned out poorly...

 

 

 

To be fair, everyone knew even before J.J. Abrams was hired to direct Star Trek 2009 that he was always a big Star Wars fan, not Star Trek fan (though I take umbrage with him implying there that Star Trek was too philosophical for him but Star Wars isn't philosophical then?) and that it was writing duo Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman that were the big Trek fans, not the director. 

 

But those gifs perfectly describe J.J.'s directing style. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed but never loved these movie Treks. I just hope that they don't abandon the franchise. Unlike most overstuffed franchises, I keep wanting more. There are so many ways to do Trek, though I wonder if they could ever do a take that wasn't Kirk or Picard without a successful TV series launching it first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 (though I take umbrage with him implying there that Star Trek was too philosophical for him but Star Wars isn't philosophical then?)

This isn’t really controversial at all to me. Compared to the better Trek episodes and movies, Star Wars is not philosophical at all. There’s some discussion about turning Vader in RotJ but other than that the original Star Wars movies are straight up black vs. white, good vs. evil. Kirk and the gang have to make difficult decisions pretty regularly, Luke and friends almost never do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kal-El814 said:

This isn’t really controversial at all to me. Compared to the better Trek episodes and movies, Star Wars is not philosophical at all. There’s some discussion about turning Vader in RotJ but other than that the original Star Wars movies are straight up black vs. white, good vs. evil. Kirk and the gang have to make difficult decisions pretty regularly, Luke and friends almost never do.

 

No, I agree with you, but his implication could be taken to mean that Star Wars is not philosophical to a fault, which is why he'd be a fan of it over Star Trek and I think that's unfair to Star Wars. Star Trek is of course the far more philosophical of the two (normally). Just reading the tea leaves, could be way off base. :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

No, I agree with you, but his implication could be taken to mean that Star Wars is not philosophical to a fault, which is why he'd be a fan of it over Star Trek and I think that's unfair to Star Wars. Star Trek is of course the far more philosophical of the two (normally). Just reading the tea leaves, could be way off base. :p 

Ah fair enough, I hear you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

I enjoyed but never loved these movie Treks. I just hope that they don't abandon the franchise. Unlike most overstuffed franchises, I keep wanting more. There are so many ways to do Trek, though I wonder if they could ever do a take that wasn't Kirk or Picard without a successful TV series launching it first. 

 

It wouldn't shock me if this has something to do with the movie being shelved: CBS’ CEO Search On Back Burner Amidst Push For New Viacom Merger Talks

 

The Viacom/CBS split resulted in the rights to Trek being split along movie/TV lines, and I think part of the motivation for the JJ movies was not having to coordinate with CBS. So if Viacom and CBS shacking back up is realistic then it could help kill the motivation for making these JJverse movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elbobo said:

remerging could solve some Discovery's issues, seems like a lot of the changes are mandated legally by the separation between CBS and Viacom 

 

What changes in Discovery were mandated by CBS and Viacom being separated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

What changes in Discovery were mandated by CBS and Viacom being separated?

 

https://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discoverys-version-of-the-enterprise-had-to-1825276401

 

 

it is really weird stuff like the Enterprise has to look 25% different from the TOS look and people are assuming that this may have been what led to at least some of the other style changes in the series, obviously some of them were just intentional updating 50 year old designs/effects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jason said:

It wouldn't shock me if this has something to do with the movie being shelved: CBS’ CEO Search On Back Burner Amidst Push For New Viacom Merger Talks

 

The Viacom/CBS split resulted in the rights to Trek being split along movie/TV lines, and I think part of the motivation for the JJ movies was not having to coordinate with CBS. So if Viacom and CBS shacking back up is realistic then it could help kill the motivation for making these JJverse movies.

Maybe.

 

The real problem is they just don't make enough money.

 

I imagine the dream after a merger would be to have the TV shows and the movies make money from each other. As it stands, I don't think the Trek films really push many All Access subs, and I doubt Disco would do much for Trek 4 ticket sales. Still, it's kind of hard to imagine getting to that place even after a merger. We've seen how difficult it's been for the MCU to push cross platform content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah beyond was at best a disappointment if not full on flop and the 4th movie would have seen big pay increases for the cast.

 

Trek movies don't need to be massive budget summer block busters. First Contact easily the best of the TNG movies was made on a budget of 45,000,000 that is about 72,000,000 in today's money. Beyond's budget was 185,000,000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Maybe.

 

The real problem is they just don't make enough money.

 

I imagine the dream after a merger would be to have the TV shows and the movies make money from each other. As it stands, I don't think the Trek films really push many All Access subs, and I doubt Disco would do much for Trek 4 ticket sales. Still, it's kind of hard to imagine getting to that place even after a merger. We've seen how difficult it's been for the MCU to push cross platform content.

 

:facepalm: Maybe they don't make enough money because the marketing for them is pathetic--look at how the 50th anniversary was bungled.

 

CBS and Paramount Royally Screwed Up Star Trek's 50th Anniversary

 

Quote

Of course, CBS and Paramount have had the whole year to celebrate Star Trek’s anniversary and done virtually nothing with it. Paramount, which owns the rights to the movies, had the chance to make Star Trek Beyond into its own Skyfall, another movie that was released to coincide with the 50th anniversary of its franchise. Certainly, cowriters Simon Pegg and Doug Jung peppered Beyond with enough callbacks to the original TV shows that it could have easily worked as an anniversary film, had Paramount marketed it as such.

 

Early on in Beyond’s production, it actually seemed like Paramount was planning exactly that. In 2014, Paramount announced that the film would premiere in 2016, coinciding with the 50th anniversary. And it stuck to that date, even through a director change and several rejected scripts. Everything should have lined up for Beyond to take advantage of the anniversary.

 

But then something changed. The first trailer for Star Trek Beyond was released in December, 2015. Nothing more was heard about the film for ages, until Paramount announced it would premiere a new trailer at a special “fan event” on May 20, 2016. And while the cast and crew were willing to talk about Beyond in terms of the anniversary, nothing in the promotional material for the film mentioned it. The closest thing to an acknowledgment we got was a poster which clearly invoked The Motion Picture:

 

Even stranger, the movie’s release date was pushed back from July 8 to July 22, when they could have pushed it even further and actually pegged it to this week’s anniversary. Then they could have also used San Diego Comic-Con to bring out the cast to promote it, especially since they didn’t have anything the previous year.

 

What did we get instead? A commercial which revealed one of the big twists of the movie and was so bad that the writer/star said not to watch it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

:facepalm: Maybe they don't make enough money because the marketing for them is pathetic--look at how the 50th anniversary was bungled.

 

 

I'm sure marketing played a big part of it, but in the end it kinda doesn't matter. The Trek reboots have a stacked cast, a massive budget, and some pretty capable directors, and after three tries they couldn't keep making money.

 

The first made the most in the US with $257M, but it's been downhill from there to the $158M of Beyond. That might be a salvageable series, but not with worldwide barely moving from $128M to $184M. Compare it to the Mission Impossible films, put out by the same studio, and while the US grosses haven't risen much, the overseas take keeps those movies quite profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
1 hour ago, Jason said:
beyond-900x521.jpg
WWW.GIANTFREAKINROBOT.COM

Star Trek is dead. Or at least in movie form. Paramount was at one point working on three different Star Trek movie ideas.

 

 

 

I never cared for the reboots at all, but even if you enjoyed the first one it's pretty clear to me it was a nostalgia act that never had more than one movie's worth of, "Hey, remember Star Trek..." enjoyment.

 

That article has it exactly right. Any future movie should be predicated on a series organically blowing up as big as TNG did in the 90's.

 

And even then, it's more a matter of "could" than "should". Movies have always been a shitty format for Star Trek.

 

I think the only current concept for a Star Trek project that would have to be a movie that I would like is some kind of time travel story that unites all 5 of the "big" captains. Generations makes me worry that it might not turn out great. But with Shatner and Sir Baldy reaching 90 and 80 respectively it's kind of now or never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

I think the only current concept for a Star Trek project that would have to be a movie that I would like is some kind of time travel story that unites all 5 of the "big" captains. Generations makes me worry that it might not turn out great. But with Shatner and Sir Baldy reaching 90 and 80 respectively it's kind of now or never.

 

Well, one, there's probably zero chance they get Avery Brooks back. But beyond that, I think what always hampered the movies was having to be standalone stories, especially in the TNG era. Now that connected media universes are all the rage I think it solves the main problem, which was that it's hard to get us to care about the pew pew action movie stuff in a Star Trek movie if there's no buildup to it. 

 

Imagine if Enterprise had kept going and had gotten an Enterprise movie that took place between seasons (or during a mid-season break) that was about a key battle in the Earth-Romulan War. Or for crossing streams more, say, a TNG movie that was about the Enterprise going off on some crucial mission for the Dominion War contemporaneously with one of DS9's later seasons (maybe getting Worf on the Enterprise by just picking him up at DS9).

 

Then it'd be fine if the movies were just pew pew action movie stuff because they'd be payoff for things we'd already had time to get invested in, instead of how the movies always miss the point and assume we like the big space battle stuff in and of itself and not as payoff, and sidestep the issue that they probably simply don't have enough time to make it feel like worthwhile payoff in a self-contained two hour movie. The fact that CBS and Viacom are now reunited means it's at least possible—IIRC the way the rights got split between TV and movies had something like Viacom didn't need to let CBS have creative input (and share the profits) as long as it was mostly TOS era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Maybe instead of using the TV show's characters and then rebooting same characters with different actors they just make a whole new Star Trek crew and make it a movie only crew that way you can keep the series going and it's super fresh and original.

 

I don't understand. Are there at least Fast and the Furious characters in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Into Darkness was pure shit. I thought the last one (Beyond?) was a great attempt at moving the franchise back to the random formula of the original Star Trek series that mixed the crew characters up with each other and told it's own unique story (minus the whole "Hey look, someone wants revenge against the Federation" villain)...

 

And I was so hoping these new movies would have at least given us a great potpourri of ideas if the writers were so intent on rehashing old plots... What if Starfleet did push out farther in space to find Khan earlier than the original series, but then they got the attention of the Borg at the same time somehow? What if Khan then needed to team up with Kirk to take on the ultimate threat? What if Mudd conned his way on the the Enterprise and replaced 50% of the crew with clone machines, and we had an invasion of the body snatchers scenario? What if Kirk did die and there was a story about trying to clone him back to life (versus the original Ponfar Spock idea)? What if the Klingons and Romulans did team up and killed off most of the Federation and Kirk was in a type of situation that we saw Riker and the future Enterprise in the Parallels episode of TNG?

 

Since these movies just wanted to rehash old ideas, there was so much potential for a fun "What if...?" mixture of ideas. It's a shame, but at the same time I never took the JJ-verse of Star Trek as serious and respected as I did all the original movies, so these never bothered me as being anything official to canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...