Paramount Has Canceled 'Star Trek 4,' And Disney's 'Star Wars' Is To Blame
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.
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.
