B5Erik

With Into Darkness underperforming at the box office, and J.J. Abrams off doing Star Wars, what does it mean for the future of the Star Trek franchise?

Paramount pinned their hopes on the J.J. Abrams reboot, and while that worked out for them financially last time it would seem that the four year wait and releasing the movie in the middle of a crowded schedule has worked against them.

So with Abrams likely only a tangential participant in any future Star Trek movies (if there are any in the next few years), and with the problem of the new cast working on multiple other projects, what will Paramount do going forward?

To recapture the momentum created by the 2009 reboot Paramount needs to have another Trek movie out in 2016, but is that very likely? They would need a new creative team to run the thing, and then they would need to sign the actors to contracts, work out schedules - all of this would be easier if Into Darkness had been a big hit, but instead, while it isn't a huge flop it is only going to be a moderate hit at the box office.

If they can't get it all together with this cast led by a new creative team within the next 3 years what does Paramount do? Another reboot seems like a pretty stupid idea, but if they can't get this entire cast back what do they do instead? Recast some of the roles? Completely recast and go back to TV with a new series based on the reboot movies?

The road forward for the Trek franshise looks bumpy from here.

Kal-El

Are you in touch with the pulse of the Internet as well?

I would like to see more movies from this cast if possible and hopefully Paramount doesn't see it as the failure a lot of online people are saying it is.

B5Erik

I'm just looking at the box office numbers first and then the reality that Abrams is focusing on Star Wars now.

With the original cast and next gen movies the actors weren't going to be very busy, so getting the cast back together was easy and cheap. With this cast that won't necessarily be the case, making a 3rd movie less likely with the disappointing box office numbers.

Getting a 3rd movie with this cast off the ground isn't going to be easy, but if they wait too long it may never happen. There are a lot of obstacles in the way.

Josh-da-man

I think they should film the next two or three Trek films back-to-back, Matrix/LOTR/POTC-style.

These movies have tons of special effects, so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to film the live action footage for two or three movies at once, then release one movie every year or two. If they deem there's enough interest for more, then they could film two or three additional movies the same way.

Some of the people in these have so little screen time that it shouldn't be too hard get Pine and Quinto together for the bulk of the filming, then bring in everyone else for a couple of weeks to film their scenes. I think that Sulu, Chekov, Scotty, and McCoy probably had less than five minutes of screen time each in "Into Darkness."

Solid Snake

The only really busy people of the cast is Pegg and Urban, and that is pushing it. Pine is doing some stuff but i'm sure he'll be available unless he becomes bigger...which was very little last time and most likely time. Getting the cast is easy.

With the crew? That is different. Just get Brad Bird again to follow an Abrams film. Worked for MI4. I do wonder though if Abrams will produce. If so that's a very comfortable transition.

Hokeyboy

Into Darkness isn't doing HUGE business, but it's doing business, period. There WILL be a part 3.

B5Erik

It's doing significantly less business than the last one, and with inflation, higher ticket prices and all that's got to concern some of the suits at Paramount.

I don't see it as being a lock. Star Trek has never done well worldwide, and so far this one isn't doing well worldwide, either. That's where the profit is made these days, and with such a high price tag this one is threatening to be a break even proposition at best going into home video. Yeah, after that it will be a moneymaker, but still - that's not what Paramount execs wanted or expected.

Paramount has never been run by geniuses. They'll take their time and be indicisive, which will be a major stumbling block on making a third movie in this continuity.

Trek has fallen way into 3rd place this weekend, and after a mediocre first week that has to be feeding into the doubts among the suits.

resinrats

The cast might already be signed for #3. Seems many franchise movies sign actors for multiple seqeals

Supermallet

The cast was definitely signed for multiple movies. Paramount isn't that stupid.

I say let Nicholas Meyer direct the next one.

bluetoast

I'd rather Brad Bird do his own thing. 1906 has been out on hold way too many times as it is. He's already proven he can direct big budget live action stuff, no need to jump in any more franchises, he's no gun for hire.

FRwL

Theyll run this sucker into the ground good or bad.

Hokeyboy

Trek opened to $70+ million and is one of the strongest entertainment brands out there. It'll clear $200 million with the same amount overseas (its already at $80 and counting). Plus excellent word of mouth and great reviews. A third movie is a DEFINITE lock.

Hokeyboy

And let Duncan Moon direct the Trek movie!

EDIT: DADGUMMIT!

RoboDad

Who?

MBoyd

I'm wondering if the next one will have stylistic differences like what we saw between Motion Picture and II. I'm also thinking this film set up Uhura to do bigger things in the future with the Klingons. Could be interesting if they pull in elements from Star Trek VI someday.

And I wouldn't mind seeing a final TNG film. I remember reading someone had an idea once for a Wild Bunch in space ending for the original crew. Adapt that for TNG and let 'em go out just like that.

majorjoe23

His dad's a Staaarrrrmmmaaaan!

davidh777

Duncan Moon, who directed the Jones movie

Solid Snake

And in case the reference isn't understood. His dad is David fucking Bowie.

The Antipodean

Star Trek's best home is on TV and always has been. I hope a new series that's both innovative and true to the spirit of the concept comes along sometime -- my personal preference is set in the non-JJ timeline but that may never happen, but while I've liked a lot of the Trek movies the TV series have always been the best place to build on the concepts.

DynamicKnight

Are you sure? Seems to me Duncan Moon is a stone and stucco artist according to Google, not someone I think would have a lot of experience directing a big-budget movie.

BKenn01

I agree with the TV comment. Lets spin off in this universe with a different ship and crew.

movieguru

It may not be doing what they expected, but it's still doing moderately well. It will also make money with the merchandising of movie related figures and toys. 2016 is also the 50th anniversary of the TV series (not counting the original pilot); so it's likely that the third movie will be released in that year.

Hokeyboy

I mean, it's not like it's doing THAT much less than the first Trek movie. We're talking a difference of just over 10%. Yeah, with 3D and inflation it's still lagging behind and not doing expected business, but at this rate it'll still do about $215 million or so, maybe. It also got shoved out of a ton of theaters to make room for F&F and Hangover, and IM3 and Gatsby are still doing business.

I think they'd be absolutely INSANE to change directions now.

printerati

The hits just keep on coming.

Supermallet

Wapr engings at maximum, capitan!