Kylo Ren killed Spock too (So forget about that Spock/Uhura sex scene, the Abramsverse is DEAD).

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
#1
Jan 10, 2019, 01:15pm
Paramount Has Canceled 'Star Trek 4,' And Disney's 'Star Wars' Is To Blame
Scott Mendelson Senior Contributor


Star Trek BeyondParamount

To the surprise of absolutely no one paying attention, Paramount/Viacom has discreetly pulled the plug on the fourth chapter in their rebooted Star Trek movie franchise. This tidbit was buried in a Deadline article about the new Game of Thrones prequel spin-off, as the pilot episode is to be helmed by SJ Clarkson. Clarkson was set to direct the sequel to Star Trek Beyond, and her attachment to the HBO fantasy prequel series is tied to Paramount pulling the plug on the sci-fi sequel. So, barring a reemergence or a change of heart, Bad Robot’s rebooted Star Trek franchise is no more. And, truth be told, 'twas Star Wars that killed the Star Trek.

As you recall, Paramount and friends put the kibosh on the Star Trek feature franchise after the disastrous performance of Star Trek: Nemesis in December 2002. Facing off against The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the poorly-reviewed Patrick Stewart/Tom Hardy sci-fi actioner opened with just $18.5m (below Maid in Manhattan which opened to $18.7m on that same weekend) and flamed out to just $43m domestic and became my go-to example of unusually awful December legs. It earned $67 worldwide on a $60m budget, while the Jennifer Lopez/Ralph Fiennes flick earned $155m worldwide on a $55m budget. Yes, romantic comedies that cost $55m used to both exist in theaters and be smart investments.

Anyway, the Next Generation cast was put out to pasture and, seven years later, we got J.J. Abrams’ rebooted Star Trek. In a clever use of time travel and alternate timelines that allowed the movie to rewrite history without invalidating the previous 43 years of TV shows and movies, Star Trek cast a motley crew of younger actors (Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin) to offer new variations of the original Enterprise crew. The action-packed and mega-budget ($150 million) sci-fi adventure received rave prerelease reviews and, thanks to the reviews and some terrific trailers, the film snagged a stunning $79.5m debut weekend (counting Thursday previews).

It was an unapologetic crowd-pleaser, offering the kind of zippy and quippy mix of nerdy sci-fi and blockbuster swashbuckling that folks had arguably wanted from the Star Wars prequels (and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). It legged its way to $256 million domestic, but overseas interest was not as strong. The film earned $385m worldwide, not a great number for a $150m-budgeted flick, but A) it was following the Batman Begins template and B) Paramount was doing just fine thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (remember, they released Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America before Disney took over), the DreamWorks Animation flicks and the Transformers franchise.

From around 2006 to 2011, they were what Disney is today, except without the total market share domination since audiences still showed up for both The Proposal and X-Men Origins: Wolverine in the summer of 2009. But Disney bought Marvel for $4 billion in September of 2009, and Paramount would sell off their distribution rights to their MCU franchises for just $115 million in 2011. Disney bought Lucasfilm for $4b in October of 2012, and yes Paramount eventually sold Disney the rights to future Indiana Jones movies in late 2013. But put a pin in that for a moment, because Star Trek Into Darkness, which brought in Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison Khan was supposed to be a breakout sequel on par with The Dark Knight. But four years later, audiences were more excited about Marvel’s post-Avengers movies and whatever Warner Bros. was up to with Man of Steel.

Star Trek Into Darkness earned solid reviews but the kind of divisive online fan reaction that skews the narrative. It earned $229 million from an $83m Thurs-Sun debut (which was leggy enough) and $467m worldwide, mostly thanks to a 3-D conversion this time out. But the big problem was just around the corner, as Disney had begun work on new Star Wars movie, specifically what would become Star Wars: The Force Awakens. In between Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, Paramount would also “lose” DreamWorks Animation to Fox (it’s now over at Comcast) and would lose the MCU to Walt Disney (even as they made money on The Avengers and Iron Man 3).

The biggest problem would be that new Star Wars movie. The Force Awakens (also directed by J.J. Abrams) opened in December of 2015 to rave reviews, a record $248 million domestic and $525m worldwide debut and eventually legged it to $937m domestic/$2 billion worldwide. To the extent that the new Star Trek movies were filling a hole left by the divisively-received Star Wars prequels (and the lack of Matrix or Lord of the Rings-type franchises), the return of the genuine article negated the need for new Star Trek movies that could approximate Star Trek-level sci-fi wonkery with Star Wars-worthy blockbuster thrills. Slight digression, but it also didn’t help that high-end TV could now approximate theater-worthy spectacle.

By the time Justin Lin’s Star Trek Beyond entered theaters in the summer of 2016 with strong reviews and fan approval, the key trump cards (Star Trek movies that played like Star Wars movies, the relative paucity of blockbusters on the scale of Star Trek into Darkness, the inability of TV sci-fi to offer comparative action and spectacle) were off the table. Star Trek Beyond was no longer remotely special, as either a big-budget blockbuster fantasy action franchise among many (a problem that befell many big movies in the summer of Warcraft, Independence Day: Resurgence and Ghostbusters) or as a Star Trek movie that was on the same playing field as Star Wars.

Once Star Wars rode back into town, there was no reason for general audiences to get excited about another “new” Star Trek movie. Just as Star Trek Nemesis paled in comparison to the Star Wars prequels, the Harry Potter flicks, Spider-Man and Lord of the Rings, so too does Star Trek no longer play as an event movie alongside The Last Jedi, Avengers: Infinity War and Aquaman. But to the extent that Star Trek provided “the next best thing to Star Wars” in 2009, a follow-up to the $338 million-grossing Star Trek Beyond would be saddled with its existence both as damaged goods and merely a giant among giants, smaller than Fate of the Furious, The Last Jedi and Avengers: Endgame.

As of now, Star Trek Discovery is apparently delivering action-packed Star Trek-worthy thrills on CBS All Access while Seth MacFarlane’s The Orville is going the topical sci-fi and talk > action interstellar adventure route over at Fox. Not only is the Bad Robot Star Trek franchise not the only (or biggest) Star Wars-type series in town, it’s not even the only major Star Trek option for fans and general consumers. And with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth apparently refusing a pay cut (from contracts foolishly negotiated before Star Trek Beyond opened), Paramount had little choice but to walk away from a movie likely to cost as much as Transformers but earn about as much as Bumblebee.

https://superheronews.com/paramount-has-canceled-star-trek-4-and-disneys-star-wars-is-to-blame/
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
#2
Contrary to what the guy says, DSC is on shaky ground, and panned by the overall Trek audience, while Orville is liked, but losing in the ratings now and at risk of cancellation. Even the Picard series, which who knows if it will even happen, is run by the guy who's making DSC the way it is. Contrary to what's been said just last year, this is not a good time for Trek fans.
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
#4
While I'm not crazy about these films, I don't think it's good for the franchise. It's not as if the money will be there tomorrow for an appropriate and desired Next Next Generation project if DSC folds too. The money comes from non-fans, and there's no money if all Trek is failing.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#5
When I saw Star Trek 4 was cancelled, I thought, "wait there's only two, right?" . I guess I made the reporter's point,

Sad, not sad.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#6
Star Trek appeals to Star Trek fans. Aging nerds that grew up with Kirk/Picard/Sisko/Janeway. I don't see a whole lot of fresh fans flocking to see more. Their marketing has always sucked and their stories are boring compared to other sci fi out there. Let it go and reboot it in another 20 years.
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
#7
When I saw Star Trek 4 was cancelled, I thought, "wait there's only two, right?" . I guess I made the reporter's point,

Sad, not sad.
The gall of ignoring the previous films altogether, even to just prefix the new numbering scheme somehow, was something fans would not forgive Abrams for. It's a subtle fuck you from him to the old fanbase, and we let him know how we felt, apparently.
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
#8
Let it go and reboot it in another 20 years.
No, no one wants a reboot; especially after this. Most people really do want a continuation moving forward from TNG/DS9/VOY. While I hate invoking SW here, look what happened there with Lucas deciding not to do sequels and do prequels instead. People got old, and now some are dead. Rest this, and no cameos from any of the previous TNG-era series are possible, and we, and those actors, deserve to have that at least.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#9
No, no one wants a reboot; especially after this. Most people really do want a continuation moving forward from TNG/DS9/VOY. While I hate invoking SW here, look what happened there with Lucas deciding not to do sequels and do prequels instead. People got old, and now some are dead. Rest this, and no cameos from any of the previous TNG-era series are possible, and we, and those actors, deserve to have that at least.
If there was an appetite for Star Trek, I think the reboot would have been a winner. The characters were likable, popular director, the plots were....OK....they gave us KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNN. I just think Paramount and a lot of hardcore fans overestimate the demand. Unfortunately a big budget Sci-fi requires big box offices to sustain, and it's just not there. And I don't think it matters what timeline they chose. It's all about bringing new fans into the mix, because you can appeal to the old fans with MPC models and finger puppets on 8mm film.
 

Radioguy

Having it my way since '98
#10
If there was an appetite for Star Trek, I think the reboot would have been a winner. The characters were likable, popular director, the plots were....OK....they gave us KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNN. I just think Paramount and a lot of hardcore fans overestimate the demand. Unfortunately a big budget Sci-fi requires big box offices to sustain, and it's just not there. And I don't think it matters what timeline they chose. It's all about bringing new fans into the mix, because you can appeal to the old fans with MPC models and finger puppets on 8mm film.
No, you can look here to old posts, and all over the net: Trek fans grudgingly liked the films. More than once they said they liked elements, or the overall "fun" factor, but often prefaced it with this is not Trek, and were keen to use nuTrek or Abramsverse as descriptives. The average Trek fan never thought of the Abrams films as "real" Star Trek, as it was not meant for "Trek fans".

Abrams said as much before himself, in that these were for folks who weren't the fanbase, and we all know he eschewed TOS etc in his attempt to rewrite the franchise history. He Tarantino'd TOS for a new audience, and old audience be damned. Well, look what happened. In the end, it might have all been an intended stepping stone to SW; who knows.

Don't get started on Khan as a draw. That was a grave error. "It's NOT Khan" ought to be inscribed on Abrams' tombstone.

It goes without saying that Trek belongs on TV, and that no Trek should be on the big screen in lieu of that. Trek films are an adjunct, and the whole franchise cannot, and should not ever rest on box office totals. I agree there. I believe Abrams' efforts to kill all other aspects of the franchise but for his films was part of what did the films in, as each type of media supports each other.

As for timeline, I gave the reason why it matters, inasmuch as folks do want to see those actors they love in the roles they love; even as cameos.

In fact, you kind of make the point why they ought to go TNNG, as they can do all the things you want, including bring new fans into the mix with that setting and still keep their options open. CBS only hurts themselves by intentionally cutting off their nose this way with DSC by continuing to veer from "Prime canon" when it's not at all necessary; forget about what even the hardest core fan wants.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
#11
No, you can look here to old posts, and all over the net: Trek fans grudgingly liked the films. More than once they said they liked elements, or the overall "fun" factor, but often prefaced it with this is not Trek, and were keen to use nuTrek or Abramsverse as descriptives. The average Trek fan never thought of the Abrams films as "real" Star Trek, as it was not meant for "Trek fans".
My not-insignificant sample size of Trek fans overwhelmingly embraced Abrams-Trekverse, whereas my fringe nerd friends took it or left it. Either way Paramount failed to attract a lot of new fans with Trek 2.0.

It goes without saying that Trek belongs on TV,
No argument here, and I think it is clear that they need to stick to the original canon and stop making things different for different's sake.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot in the Galaxy
#15
My not-insignificant sample size of Trek fans overwhelmingly embraced Abrams-Trekverse, whereas my fringe nerd friends took it or left it. Either way Paramount failed to attract a lot of new fans with Trek 2.0.



No argument here, and I think it is clear that they need to stick to the original canon and stop making things different for different's sake.
I'm not going to get into TV or movies, but here's what I think about the Abramsverse.

The first one succeeded because they nailed the cast. Yes, everyone was in hyperdrive and Spock was off. But the cast was likable and that goes a long way towards winning people over. Plus it got around the reboot/prequel kerfluffle fairly cleverly. Not a great movie, but a decent set up.

Then Into Darkness happened and that's where everything went wrong. It relied too heavily on WoK while getting everything wrong about WoK. They wrote Khan completely differently from how Khan should be, yet the movie would make little sense had you not seen WoK. So it turned off Trek fans by messing with the most classic movie and non-Trek fans by being non-sensical.

Beyond was a return to form, and it showed how a film franchise could work. Go to planet, have adventure, leave. Nothing wrong with something more episodic. But by then it was too late. We had moved on to Guardians and Wars.

I think if they released the movies more frequently (every three years or so) so they never got out of the public eye, they'd win people over/back. But they never had a consistent plan or vision so it fell apart. Throw in the Tarantino Trek rumors and whatever the fuck CBS is doing and this fell by the wayside.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
#16
If there was an appetite for Star Trek, I think the reboot would have been a winner. The characters were likable, popular director, the plots were....OK....they gave us KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNN. I just think Paramount and a lot of hardcore fans overestimate the demand. Unfortunately a big budget Sci-fi requires big box offices to sustain, and it's just not there. And I don't think it matters what timeline they chose. It's all about bringing new fans into the mix, because you can appeal to the old fans with MPC models and finger puppets on 8mm film.
The Khan thing was dumb. It wasn’t even Khan.
 
#17
I'm not going to get into TV or movies, but here's what I think about the Abramsverse.

The first one succeeded because they nailed the cast. Yes, everyone was in hyperdrive and Spock was off. But the cast was likable and that goes a long way towards winning people over. Plus it got around the reboot/prequel kerfluffle fairly cleverly. Not a great movie, but a decent set up.

Then Into Darkness happened and that's where everything went wrong. It relied too heavily on WoK while getting everything wrong about WoK. They wrote Khan completely differently from how Khan should be, yet the movie would make little sense had you not seen WoK. So it turned off Trek fans by messing with the most classic movie and non-Trek fans by being non-sensical.

Beyond was a return to form, and it showed how a film franchise could work. Go to planet, have adventure, leave. Nothing wrong with something more episodic. But by then it was too late. We had moved on to Guardians and Wars.

I think if they released the movies more frequently (every three years or so) so they never got out of the public eye, they'd win people over/back. But they never had a consistent plan or vision so it fell apart. Throw in the Tarantino Trek rumors and whatever the fuck CBS is doing and this fell by the wayside.
The only thing I like about Abrams movie was it made me curious how a universe without the Romulan empire would be. How would it stress the ties with the Klingons? Would they leave the federation to try and take their territory? Would someone we didn't think of do it instead? Would the federation help them rebuild? Would they have no choice but to join the federation for their own safety?

All interesting questions that Abrams would never touch cause it doesn't involve screen flare and pew pew splody stuff.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot in the Galaxy
#18
The only thing I like about Abrams movie was it made me curious how a universe without the Romulan empire would be. How would it stress the ties with the Klingons? Would they leave the federation to try and take their territory? Would someone we didn't think of do it instead? Would the federation help them rebuild? Would they have no choice but to join the federation for their own safety?

All interesting questions that Abrams would never touch cause it doesn't involve screen flare and pew pew splody stuff.
If Discovery had to be a prequel, it should have been about a Klingon/Romulan Alliance. The Federation's intellectual superior joining with their physical superior.

And I believe we've yet to see a single Andorian. Those blue antennaed bastards absolutely no one likes.
 

Discoman

Well-Known Member
Donator
#20
The Nu Trek series had its niche before the new iteration of Star Wars films as a sort of Star Wars lite. You can look at countless viewer reactions and the usual line is "I don't usually like Star Trek, but I liked this movie", so I think it did at least interest the passerby, but as turnout with the last one evidenced, it didn't cement a new audience.

Regardless of the new Star Wars movies failing or succeeding, the new Star Trek series outlived its purpose for the casual audience once they got their 'more actiony space movies'. Although the Star Trek films, the good ones anyway, were never philosophical, the only theme the Nu Trek universe bothered with was "A diverse crew coming together", and they fucking did it twice.

As for myself, I didn't particularly like the 2009 film for what Red Letter Media called the "super-charged" personalities. Into Darkness fails for me just by introducing Khan again; a whole new universe and they went the safe route and still fucked it up.

And yeah, Star Trek is best as a series. If they want to do a quirky spin-off film or TV series they can do Gary Seven or something.
 

JoeyDVDZ

Well-Known Member
Donator
#21
The Nu Trek series had its niche before the new iteration of Star Wars films as a sort of Star Wars lite. You can look at countless viewer reactions and the usual line is "I don't usually like Star Trek, but I liked this movie", so I think it did at least interest the passerby, but as turnout with the last one evidenced, it didn't cement a new audience.

Regardless of the new Star Wars movies failing or succeeding, the new Star Trek series outlived its purpose for the casual audience once they got their 'more actiony space movies'. Although the Star Trek films, the good ones anyway, were never philosophical, the only theme the Nu Trek universe bothered with was "A diverse crew coming together", and they fucking did it twice.

As for myself, I didn't particularly like the 2009 film for what Red Letter Media called the "super-charged" personalities. Into Darkness fails for me just by introducing Khan again; a whole new universe and they went the safe route and still fucked it up.

And yeah, Star Trek is best as a series. If they want to do a quirky spin-off film or TV series they can do Gary Seven or something.
I would have loved to see Gary Seven explored.
 

Opie&JimmyShow

Well-Known Member
Donator
#22
IMO Disney made a big mistake believing Star Trek and Star Wars fans are all in on both genres. I like Star Wars, I love Star Trek. I always leaned more towards SciFi that in theory could be turned into something material. ST does that to a certain degree. Star Wars doesn't. I agree the casting of the re-boot was really good. The first Trek was really good too. The second was ok, the third was below average. I am not losing any sleep over the 4th installment being canceled.

I haven't watched Discovery yet because I don't want to pay for it and I am just not that interested. I would check it out if it was on normal TV.
 

Opie&JimmyShow

Well-Known Member
Donator
#24
I did some research on Discovery. I had NO idea it was such an SJW shit show.

They also make no bones about telling the old fans, the die hard to fuck off in favor of appealing to a new fan base that's a small percentage of what the real fan base is.

What a disgrace and embarrassment. From a video I watched it appears CBS and Viacom want to kill the Prime line, Cannon and Kelvin line altogether due to marketing and licensing issues and make Discovery cannon. That's why they insist ita cannon when it really isn't. What a unmitigated disaster. I'm glad I didn't waste my time or money on this mess.



Sent from your Mom's box.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot in the Galaxy
#25
I did some research on Discovery. I had NO idea it was such an SJW shit show.

They also make no bones about telling the old fans, the die hard to fuck off in favor of appealing to a new fan base that's a small percentage of what the real fan base is.

What a disgrace and embarrassment. From a video I watched it appears CBS and Viacom want to kill the Prime line, Cannon and Kelvin line altogether due to marketing and licensing issues and make Discovery cannon. That's why they insist ita cannon when it really isn't. What a unmitigated disaster. I'm glad I didn't waste my time or money on this mess.



Sent from your Mom's box.
Except it's not an SJW shit show. It's a shit show, but the SJWism is only a relevant component for people who need to cry about SJWism.

And it's Star Trek. TOS is one of the most SJWy shows ever. Other than women being second class citizens, Roddy's future was an SJW Utopia. But because this has a gay character

 
Last edited:
Top