Star Trek 4 (1 Viewer)

[benbess]

Whatever Pine and Hemsworth were being paid, it was in the contract both they and Paramount signed.

Salaries sometimes get renegotiated in Hollywood. In any case, the big money for salaries is part of the reason Trek on the big screen is dead for now.

 

[Tino]

Salaries sometimes get renegotiated in Hollywood. In any case, the big money for salaries is part of the reason Trek on the big screen is dead for now.

They usually get renegotiated up not down.

 

[Tommy R]

Does this effect the apparently R-rated Tarantino Star Trek project? I haven't heard anything about that in a while and was under the impression it was un-connected from the current theatrical ST films.

I sort of liked these, mostly for the cast. I thought they did an amazing job with the characters. Beyond was by far my favorite, just for entertainment value. Into Darkness was the worse Trek film over all of the 13 films. Trek '09 was just okay. Overall I'm good with there being no more.

 

[BobO'Link]

...I think filmmakers today don’t realize how much less they could get away with.

Today's filmmakers seemingly can't make a SF film without massive CGI action porn sequences coming back to back to back. Once you take all that stuff out of the majority of today's films you have little, if any, story left. The reboot Trek films are no exception to this. IMHO, that's much of the reason they under performed.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Does this effect the apparently R-rated Tarantino Star Trek project? I haven't heard anything about that in a while and was under the impression it was un-connected from the current theatrical ST films.

I think you are right that they are two separate projects and the demise of this one shouldn't affect that one, theoretically. But he's making Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for Sony at the moment, so there's nothing to hear about it because he's busy and isn't working on it right now.

 

[Tino]

that's much of the reason they under performed.

Only Beyond underperformed.

 

[JimmyO]

The first of the three films was great. Darkness was not as good, but entertaining. Beyond was awful. It's this kind of negative momentum that I think does the most to kill franchises.

Put out a quality film with a great story and people will remember and are more likely to jump in for the next round. Beyond made me hate the current Trek incarnations, and if they made another Trek tomorrow, the trailers and buzz would have to be outstanding.

 

[benbess]

Only Beyond underperformed.

Beyond lost big money, but I think Star Trek Into Darkness arguably underperformed as well. When Hollywood makes a movie like Into Darkness with a reported $190 million dollar production budget they are hoping for something more than $500 million worldwide—and into Darkness got to $467. Since only about half of the gross box office makes it back to the studio, that means around $235 million got back to Paramount. But adding to the movie's real costs was a worldwide advertising budget of at least $60 million (and perhaps more), and so it wasn't even at the breakeven level for the theatrical release. Home video and streaming probably pushed it barely into the black, but even that's not certain. This is one of the reasons why they attempted to cut costs for Beyond, but given the obligations to write bigger paychecks to the main cast that we've talked about this didn't end up being significant.

 

[BobO'Link]

Only Beyond underperformed.

Star Trek:
Budget ~$150,000,000
Worldwide Gross ~$385,680,446

Into Darkness:
Budget ~$190,000,000
Worldwide Gross ~$467,365,246

Beyond:
Budget ~$185,000,000
Worldwide Gross ~$343,471,816

By comparison:
X-Men:
Budget ~$75,000,000
Worldwide Gross ~296,339,527

X-Men2:
Budget ~$110,000,000
Worldwide Gross ~$407,711,549

While the first had respectable earnings, it didn't double its budget in US Gross - something the first two X films did. Yes, it had the largest box office for a Trek film which makes is successful in that arena and it did well enough for Paramount to produce a sequel. Generally a film needs to earn twice its production costs in worldwide sales to be considered "profitable." The first two did a little better than twice but taken in context with other "tent pole" or "blockbuster" films they generally under performed, especially in non-English markets.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I for one enjoyed all 3 of the current Trek rebot movies and enough to buy them on 4K blu-ray! I will be watching all 3 again once the new Sony XBR55A9F 4K OLED has arrived and is hooked up to the Marantz SR-8012!

That being said I know there was issues between the actors and the studio with what the actors wanted and how much the studio was prepared to pay them. I beleive the issue was the studio was looking to pay them less. The only thing that would have killed the fourth movie for me is if the story was horrible and would have to be good following the first three in the new timeline. Along with the 10 previous Star Trek movies I will have more than enough Star Trek to enjoy till the studio comes around to making a new Star Trek. Maybe they will turn to making a new movie around one of the other Star Trek tv series? Only time will tell but hopefully Paramount will come to an agreement and we will get a new Star Trek movie to enjoy. Have been into Star Trek since the original tv series! Hope to get the original tv series on blu-ray this year!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That being said I know there was issues between the actors and the studio with what the actors wanted and how much the studio was prepared to pay them. I beleive the issue was the studio was looking to pay them less.

Right.

When Paramount was casting to do the first reboot movie, they signed the cast to three picture deals. However, there's a law in California that personal service contracts are only valid for seven years, and because Paramount took so ridiculously long to make Star Trek Into Darkness after the '09 movie, by the time they started working on Star Trek Beyond, more than seven years had passed since the original contracts were signed, and they were no longer valid. At that point, the key cast members all signed brand new two picture deals; the first film for that deal was Star Trek Beyond.

Paramount no longer wants to pay Chris Pine the amount that they mutually agreed to before Star Trek Beyond, and which they're contractually obligated to pay him. From what I remember, it was not an outrageous amount; he's not getting Robert Downey Jr. money. I place the blame solely on Paramount in this matter since they are the ones refusing to honor the contract.

 

[Tom St Jones]

With STAR WARS Episode 9 coming at year's end, J.J. Abrams may be freed up enough to return as director - which may or may not motivate the various parties into mending fences/ coming to a deal - unless the Quentin Tarantino idea is actually greenlit. (Personally, I'd like to see Kathryn Bigelow [The Hurt Locker] brought in). Regardless, ofcourse, it all hinges on getting Chris Pine & co. back and soon..

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

They usually get renegotiated up not down.

I think this is the key issue. Chris Pine is starring in Patty Jenkins's upcoming historical fiction miniseries for TNT, "I Am the Night", and I'm sure he made a lot less than $6 million for that.

But accepting a massive pay cut for Star Trek 4 would set an unwanted precedent, and negatively affect his quote for all future projects moving forward.

If Paramount had held off on negotiating salaries on Star Trek 4 until after Star Trek 3 came out, Pine almost certainly would have agreed to a salary much closer to the $3 million he got for Beyond, and this would all be a non-issue.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Unfortunately, Paramount had to negotiate a new deal for Beyond because their own stalling had invalidated the original three picture deals. And at that point, with Into Darkness building on the critical and commercial success of the ‘09 movie, there was probably no way to get the cast to resign at the rate they would have been paid if Paramount had made the movies on a more timely schedule. Offering a raise for a potential fourth film was probably Paramount’s only option at the time.

Any way you look at it, Paramount’s mismanagement has led to a successful reboot running out of steam for reasons that were entirely self inflicted, unforced errors.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

Does this effect the apparently R-rated Tarantino Star Trek project? I haven't heard anything about that in a while and was under the impression it was un-connected from the current theatrical ST films.

I sort of liked these, mostly for the cast. I thought they did an amazing job with the characters. Beyond was by far my favorite, just for entertainment value. Into Darkness was the worse Trek film over all of the 13 films. Trek '09 was just okay. Overall I'm good with there being no more.

I am the opposite.

I can swallow the Kelvin timeline since it gave us more Trek. We had a solid Kirk, Spock, Scotty and McCoy.
Trek 09 was great.
Darkness was good+.
Beyond was an inane dumpster fire. Start with "We have no idea what we are going to do so we will destroy the Enterprise again", blend in a stupid choice of director, add a dumb motorcycle scene, then criminally waste the talent of Idris Elba, shove a lousy pop song in and cap it off with the stupidest space station in the history of Trek and you have it.

It was an exercise in doing the least with the most in a bid to appeal to the lowest.

The entire concept of starships going through miles long airlock tubes to get into a space station is as if Justin Lin was saying to JJ Abrams "I can do something even dumber than your scene where Spock sees Vulcan explode!"

 

[Dave Moritz]

While a Quentin Tarantino might be interesting I do not feel we need to have a rated R Star Trek!

 

[Tommy R]

While a Quentin Tarantino might be interesting I do not feel we need to have a rated R Star Trek!

I don't know, I can sure picture Sam Jackson pointing a phaser at someone and asking them "KLINGON, MOTHER FUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!?!"

 

[Philip Verdieck]

N/T

 

[Philip Verdieck]

I don't know, I can sure picture Sam Jackson pointing a phaser at someone and asking them "KLINGON, MOTHER FUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?!?!"

disruptor...

 

[Tino]

Obviously, The first two Star Trek films certainly weren’t huge moneymakers for Paramount. They did ok. But imo only Beyond is considered a box office “disappointment” in the business.

And according to accounting reports, pretty much all films make no money for their studios, don’t you know that?