It’s been a busy day for Trek news, and we’re barely through the morning — and here’s one more breaking story, laying the first bit of foundation for a potential Star Trek Beyond sequel.

The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed today that actors Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto have both completed contract negotiations with Paramount Pictures to extend their runs as Kirk and Spock for a potential fourth Star Trek film.

Each actor was seeking raises from their original three-picture contract established in 2009. Chris Pine earned just $600,000 for the lead role in that first film — bumped to $1.5 Million for Into Darkness — and was hoping to double his $3 Million Star Trek Beyond take. Neogtiations appear to have been fruitful as his paycheck has been increased to $6 Million for the new film, currently filming in Vancouver.

The one condition of the various pay and benefit increases, according to THR, was that Pine and Quinto lock down their participation in another sequel — and that was completed in these new contracts.

While this news isn’t a guarantee of a Star Trek Beyond sequel, it’s the first indication that Paramount is looking to keep the J.J. Abrams film series going past 2016.

  • Cementruckpauly

    1, 2, 3, 4, we want 5! And 6.

  • TrekRules

    Wow, way to outprice yourself. Into Darkness did bad but he got $3 million for the next film that is not officially greenlit yet and will double that for the next one? Hollywood math – who cares if the film makes money, pay them!Guess the only good part is we will never see a 4th film.

    • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

      How can a film not yet greenlit be in full production?

      • prometheus59650

        Private investors, of course. 😉

        • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

          lol

    • prometheus59650

      Per the article, Pine got $6M for this film (not 3) but that was contingent upon him letting Paramount option him for Trek 4.

      And they wouldn’t lock in his option if they weren’t already anticipating a 4th. I expect they are satisfied with the script and proposed direction at this point. Certainly enough to drop at least another $3M right now.

      And while Into Darkness, while it did not perform as Paramount hoped, it by no means did badly.

      • Campe

        This is extremely promising news from the Trek front! What a week!

      • James

        Star Trek Into Darkness did not ‘do badly’ at all.

        Sure, it cost a lot to make but it turned a profit at the cinema (estimated at a lowish 20%). But it aint all about the theatrical run. Add to that the $50million that F/X paid for the TV rights and then there’s it’s DVD and blu-ray sales to take into account. According to Rentrak, STID came third in a list of the top ten purchased and rented movies for the year, per data collected from week ending Jan. 6 through Dec. 29, 2013. Star Trek was #3 in 2013 for Rentals and Digital Purchases. According to iTunes, it was the #4 best selling film of 2013.

        Into darkness got sparkling reviews… 72 meta… 87 rotten with a 7.6 avg and 7.8 imdb plus highest worldwide gross ever for a Trek movie. You cant take the stellar reviews and success away no matter how much some (emphasis on some) trek fans disliked the reboot movies. It’s possible to simultaneously hate the re-booted Trek’s and simultaneously admit that people liked them and that they are successful.

        • prometheus59650

          And there’s also the fact that Paramount was very keen on the fact that what revenue Darkness slipped here, it made up for overseas, making more money than any other Trek film.

        • John Hughes

          Not to mention that its been popular on Netflix too!

          • danielcw

            source?

          • John Hughes

            It’s always trending and popular with lots of positive viewer reviews!

        • danielcw

          You didn’t even mention international sales, so it is even more 🙂

  • Jake

    In negotiations with bad robot not paramount.
    And that is still contingent on if the current movie is greenlit with a budget.
    Its BR propoganda trying to give off a positive impression when paramount is now looking at a legal opinion that kills the current movie

    • Per the linked source news: “Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that PARAMOUNT and producer-financier Skydance Entertainment recently completed last-minute re-negotiations with the Star Trek stars.”

      • Jake

        Yeah coz the hollywood reporter is such a valid source. Rumors more than fact. According to my source at cbs this was with BR but not paramount and its still contingent on several things that r long shots

        • Campe

          CBS runs the official Star Trek website. They’ve reported on the new movie (http://www.startrek.com/article/saldana-quinto-prep-for-new-trek-movie)

          • Jake

            I don’t deny that the contract was signed, i simply pointed out the irregularity, and the basis in which it would hypothetically executed.

            CBS has been threatened many times for not promoting the movies, largely coz they refused a series three times. They are technically supposed to post it, on the basis of fulfilling contract

          • Campe

            Oh lord. Any excuse to keep this going, huh? There is no irregularity. The contracts are signed. Budgets are approved. Production has begun. It’s happening.

          • Jake

            You believe what you want. Btw i checked star trek.com not there.

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            It’s the fourth story down on the front splash page.

          • Campe

            Dear lord, I posted the link.

          • Dennis

            I know what’s true, and that’s what I believe. 🙂

          • Campe

            Looks like Jake is gone.

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            Pathetic.

          • Dennis

            None of that is true.

        • Captain Jon

          Jake, you’re saying HR isn’t a valid source even though they claim to have a source inside Paramount. How is that any different from YOU with your source at CBS? Besides, CBS doesn’t have anything to do with the movies…that’s Paramount’s domain as you like to frequently point out.

          • Jake

            A source can be from BR its ignorance of the author

        • Dennis

          Hollywood Reporter is accurate and you’re wrong.

    • Campe

      Please don’t believe this, folks. There is no pending litigation between Bad Robot and Paramount.

      • prometheus59650

        Most of us know that.

        Paramount completed negotiations. Paramount. The above says so. The full THR report says so.

        • Campe

          Just putting it there so people who might believe this at face value. 😀

      • Jake

        Funny enough they were in motion court this morning. Number 19 on the roll

        • Campe

          Which courthouse?
          Which courtroom?
          Which judge?

          • prometheus59650

            All good questions.

            How about some answers, Jake? Docket is public record.

          • Jake

            LA court. Motion court is a venue of its own with rotating judges. I actually don’t know the judge to be honest, he is new to the bench.

          • Campe

            How convenient that you wouldn’t know the judge. Also, there are several different courthouses in Los Angeles. If you know it happens to be no. 19 on the roll, one would think that you could tell me which courthouse and room it was heard in. Doesn’t change the fact there is no pending litigation between Bad Robot and Paramount.

          • Jake

            Motion court is its own court. It has its own venue as a court room called motion court. There is only one in LA and that is the main one. They had the matter adjourned sine dea in order to accomidate more arbitration of budget

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            Why would a judge adjourn indefinitely when the alleged litigation concerns a time sensitive project? No competant judge would make such an order in litigation of the kind you pretend exists. A return date would always be set.

          • Campe

            It’s also sine die, not sine dea.

          • prometheus59650

            Especially since if you stall long enough the film could be ready for post, effectively sticking the other side with the bill.

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            It simply isn’t logically in the interests of both sides to adjourn without a return date. Time would clearly be a contentious issue in such a case.

          • Jake

            This is done at the parties request. A judge is tasked with executing a mandate in order to avoid the litigation

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            Bull. According to you this litigation was brought to challenge this project and stop it going into production. If the production is dependent on this litigation then it follows that the responding party (one assumes Bad Robot), who presumably want the project to go ahead, and would therefore not consent to an indefinite adjournment. I also find it very hard to believe a judge would sanction it without considering the time and financial issues involved.

            While it is certainly common in litigation for cases to be adjourned for a fixed period of time to allow for other means of resolution, adjourning indefinitely makes little sense. What’s more, if the litigation directly impacts the filming of this movie, why has the court not provided injunctive relief suspending the production until such time that resolution attempts and/or a trial have been completed?

            Finally, can you please tell us the legal basis for the proceedings. Breach of contract? Tortious? Fill us in.

            I have know idea who you are, but you talk like someone who either has a passing interest in legal procedure or is perhaps a first year law student. One thing is certain, and that is that you have little or no litigation experience.

          • prometheus59650

            Well articulated, sir.

          • robjoh

            Ditto!

            But can’t believe you’re letting this Jake person still troll you guys like he’s doing though. Thought his bulls**t would be over by now. Guess he gets some perverse pleasure in the attention he’s getting.

            Will be fun to see what actually happens in the end though. lol.

          • prometheus59650

            Speaking for me, I’m just sort of amused by him. It’s clear that he’s not in the know and just making things up as he goes, but it’s interesting to see how far he’s willing to take it all.

          • robjoh

            Yeah,it really is getting quite ridiculous now,lol. I don’t believe anything he says till I see proof. Plain and simple.

            Can’t wait for the new movie. Love this cast and the new movies,and I know it’s not considered real Trek and so on,but I don’t consider those who say that to be real Trek fans anyways. lol. This’ll be fun!

          • prometheus59650

            I’ve liked both films, even though I totally get all the gripes about Into Darkness. I don’t disagree with them, yet the film works for me anyway because of the cast chemistry.

          • robjoh

            Oh I get the gripes and stuff,just don’t care about them,lol. If I enjoy a movie,nothing that is said or done will make me enjoy it less. And I agree on the cast chemistry,why I love the gag reels on the dvds/brs.

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            Please point out the action on the daily cause list. If you’re a lawyer as you pretend you’d know that there are daily hearing lists available online for public viewing. I trust you can direct us to the listing.

          • Campe

            One would hope if he was a lawyer he would know that.

          • Jake

            They do not post it online they do it on the board outside the court. Welcome to the real world

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            Um no, they do both.

          • Campe

            Or this secret motion court that he keeps going on about. 19th on the roll. 😉

          • Campe

            http://www.lacourt.org/CivilCalendar/ui/mainpanel.aspx?CaseType=general

            This is the real world. Your real world is apparently circa 1988.

          • robjoh

            This IS the real world! You should try it sometime.

        • Captain Jon

          Why do I have a feeling this guy is going to be saying there’s litigation, there’s no budget and Paramount is about to cancel the movie up until the movie’s release?

          • Jake

            No. I will concede when paramount give it a budget over 100 million

    • prometheus59650

      Quote: BR propoganda trying to give off a positive impression when paramount is now looking at a legal opinion that kills the current movie.

      Which opinion is that? Whether or not their old contracts still apply?

      A) That’s now irrelevant because the old contract is void because the new contract is in place.

      B) If they wanted to kill the movie, they’d just stop paying for it. They don’t need injunctive relief from a court because that’s what they’d need, as a standard lawsuit is generally so slow to get to a court that the film would be in post or finished by the time it did.

      • Campe

        But according to Jake, they’re not paying for it in the first place. Which of course is completely illogical, because how could the film be shooting if there was no money or continued support by Paramount who has the license to produce and distribute any theatrical Star Trek production behind it?

        Plus, ya know, contracts with the two lead actors for a sequel to the currently in production second sequel.

        (Yeah, I closed the loophole on the whole private investor thing. :p)

        • prometheus59650

          You did. 🙂

          …because how could the film be shooting if there was no money or continued support by Paramount who has the license to produce and distribute any theatrical Star Trek production behind it?

          Pretty much covers it. Otherwise it’s a fan film .

          • Campe

            Which it absolutely HAS to be. 🙂

        • Captain Jon

          It also doesn’t make sense that contracts would be renegotiated if Paramount was gonna axe the movie. If they were going to cancel it, they would’ve left the salaries at their original price. If the movie is canceled, they’d have to pay the actors at their NEW renegotiated salaries which seems like a really stupid thing for them to do if they’re going to cancel the project.
          I may not be a whiz kid when it comes to understanding contracts and stuff, but I think I have a good enough understanding to know that’s what would happen.

          • prometheus59650

            ^^^

            Correct.

            To believe that nonsense you have to believe that Paramount just decided to give Pine $3M and Quinto slightly less than that if not exactly that much more for no reason.

            If that’s the case I want in on that deal. Hey, Paramount. Please pay me $3M to NOT appear in one of your films.

          • Campe

            Agreed. Contracts are signed. Budget approved. Film is shooting. Jake and his friends Doug “Para Möbius” Fitz and Leslie E. Owen have proven to be a complete and utter frauds. All is right in the world.

      • Jake

        Wrong. The existing contract expires in 6 months. You will notice its been optioned to paramount but not a contract thats dependent of the return seen by 3.
        They have not given a budget yet, filming is been funded by private investors (baily said that himself in feb) which are in effect donors. That makes it a fan film and policy has been to c&d fan films in the jjverse.
        Unless paramount issue a budget filming will indefinatley be postponed.

        • Campe

          The existing contract expires in July 2018.

          • Jake

            No that contract is for mission impossible.
            different franchise. Read the original press release, there was one reference to trek in a 6 paragraph press release. it was done so for mission impossible 6 to be made

          • Campe

            It is a general contract between Bad Robot and Paramount not just dealing with one property. Good Lord!

            I am really tiring of all of this with you. You don’t like the films. You’re hoping that may be there’s some truth to what you say. There isn’t. 3 is happening and unless it bombs (which it might), there probably will be a 4. It is time to let the lies die.

          • Jake

            Ok you not understanding business i think that is your problem….
            Let me dumb this down as much as i can…. bad robot is a subcontractor with a mandate to create a film based on one property. It then was given an extension on that mandate.
            It was given a second mandate as subcontractor for a second property…

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            No. he understands that you are lying. Bad Robot’s deal is a multi-picture deal, and that deal has seen it also release non-franchise movies through Paramount. The notion that franchises are being sub-contracted one at a time, along with the single movie projects, is laughable.

          • Campe

            Said it better than I could. Thanks, man.

          • Campe

            I don’t appreciate the implication I’m stupid. While I’m not involved in anything Trek, I know far more about this stuff in all regards than you do. Particularly media. AND law.

          • Dennis

            Nope. Try again.

          • Dennis

            You’re wrong.

        • Campe

          Also, and I didn’t get a chance to respond to your last post on the issue of private investors, because you know, sleeping…

          There probably are private investors, sure. That are working with Paramount directly. NOT Bad Robot.

          • Jake

            No. I will address that. Baily said on trekmovie that paramount has not given a budget, and Private investors would be used to raise funds.

          • Campe

            In February, perhaps that was true. Maybe that’s changed?!? Obviously since the movie is moving forward, there is a budget!!!

          • Jake

            No. The filming has begun yes but on funds of private investors which would be repaid upon issue of a budget. This is a dumbed down as i can explain it.

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            So you’re saying that these private investors have pledged millions with no guarantee of a return, and then have pledged to fund the raised salaries of the cast, as agreed entirely independently with the studio? Yeah, I can see lots of millionaires taking that risk.

            lol. The absurdity of these claims grows more amusing by the minute.

          • Jake

            Baily on his own donated 100 thousand and he wrote for gene and berman.
            There are a few most r companies.

          • The Earl Fleabag of Turdshire

            Which companies?

          • Campe

            Dennis Bailey wrote stories for two scripts on Next Generation. He is a friend of mine on TrekBBS. He has no connection with Bad Robot or the new movies.

          • Dennis

            Hi, I’m Dennis Bailey.

            Nothing Jake has said about me here is true. He’s lying or delusional, possibly both.

            Nor does he know a damned thing about what’s going on with this movie.

            Jake…I don’t have the kind of money it takes to invest in Paramount’s movies. If you keep telling lies about me online, though, my lawyer will be in touch and we’ll see what you have to lose in court.

            Tell a friend – tell Para and milowen. I’m sure they’re close by. 😉

          • We’ve verified that this is the ‘real’ Dennis Bailey – please let this serve to bring this topic to a close.

          • Dennis

            Not true.

          • Dennis

            Not so.

        • prometheus59650

          “The existing contract expires in 6 months”

          The one just signed per THR? Source.

          The one that’s voided by the current? Voided by the current unless your “source” can provide you with a clause where both sides agree that it’s not. I can assure you that no agent worth a damn would allow that.

          • Jake

            No, They signed a contract with bad robot to play in a movie. The contract with bad robot & paramount expires in 6 months. Its been optioned, thus its paramounts discretion

        • Jon1701

          You do realise they are filming now? Ha, I’ve read a lot of rubbish on the Internet over the last 20 years but you are right up there my friend.

        • Captain Jon

          Then how are they filming right now in British Columbia? That doesn’t make sense at all.

          • Jake

            They filming on private funds secured by investors

  • Donny Pearson

    Really? A potential “Star Trek XIV?” Fascinating.

  • Campe

    But what about Carol?

  • CoolGeek

    Glad to hear this news.Pine and Quinto are awesome as Kirk and Spock and somehow three movies with them did not seem enough.I hope we do get at least four movies with this crew.

  • James

    If the movies continue to be successful – there’s no reason why they cant keep making movies for many years to come. I’m so excited by this news 🙂 Star Trek LIVES!!

    I hope that ‘Beyond’ knocks it out of the park – do you think it might be possible that like in 1986 we get a smash-hit film followed by an announcement that there will be a new TV series? I really can’t tell you how stoked I was about TNG back in the day.

  • I don’t know how good reboots 3 and 4 will be (I’m cautiously hopeful), but given that they’ll be made, I’m glad that Paramount has acquired Pine and Quinto for them, Quinto especially.

    The problems I have with the reboot movies — especially reboot #2 — are all in the scripts; the actors are
    excellent. And since Quinto had a special connection with Mr. Nimoy, it makes me hope that if the script writers ever DO give Quinto a restrained and logical Spock to play, Quinto will know what to do with it.

  • Captain Jon

    Wait…I thought this movie wasn’t being made??? Why am I seeing so any articles about this movie and contracts being signed if it’s not happening? Besides, if Paramount was trying to cancel this movie, why would they renegotiate salaries and pay the actors? If the movie is canceledmy they STILL have to pay the contracts! I’m confused…

    Maybe this movie IS happening?

    • James

      Just one crazy Troll whose loving all the attention 🙁

  • Guest
    • Campe

      A lawsuit between Chris Pine and his former agency. Nothing directly involving Bad Robot or Paramount.

      • Guest

        Oh, how “smart!” Yes! Just to feel the balance: Paramount at first dissented, but did not want to get into an ugly court battle either, so the two sides have finally reached an agreement. That’s all! Let’s thinking!

        • Campe

          Not trying to be offensive here but I’m gathering English isn’t your first language.

          However I’m trying to figure out what exactly the document you shared has to do with anything you just said.

          Yes, Pine quit his previous agency. Yes, his previous agency sued for more money. Yes, the actors wanted more money for Trek 3. Yes, there was apparently there was the possibility of going to court over salaries for Trek 3 but they avoided litigation.

          None of that has a thing to do with what Jake said was going on. Ever. Jake’s claims were that CBS hated the movies and deemed them “not canon,” that Paramount wanted nothing to do with the new movies, that the actors HATED working on them and we’re ready to quit, that Paramount rejected 13 drafts of the screenplay, that CBS had 12 different pitches for 2 new TV series In the works, that Bad Robot tried to bully the movie into production, that there was no script, no budget, no movie, that Paramount and Bad Robot went to some secret Los Angeles court about it and that the movie because Paramount didn’t want to spend more than $80 million on it, that private investors had been brought in because of it, that with a big name director, big actors and probably a big FX budget that the movie would be nothing but a fan film.

          Jake could never provide a bit of evidence to back up these claims and I’d say most of them have been debunked in the past seven days.

          No one ever suggested there haven’t been problems on the production of Trek 3. There were script issues early on, the director was replaced and they had to write the script fairly quickly. Apparently there were actor salary issues as well. And let’s be honest: the movie MIGHT be terrible. We don’t know yet.

          Look, I really don’t want to get into this again and I’m sure that the mods and other people here don’t either. So, please, if you have some real evidence you can put on the table, do so. Otherwise we have nothing more to talk about here.

          • Guest

            “My” fourth language…I had spent some month in England…Perhaps…one day…I will go back. Is it problem for you?
            So, you’ re right. But I just wanted to say, the Paramount not as bad as everybody think…An agency, or a “kind of Pine” are worst sometimes…that’s all…why I have said: Let’s thinking!
            Have a nice day!
            (oh, and let’s thinking who really was Jake… 😉 )

          • Campe

            No problem at all! Just having a little issue with the language barrier. But I totally respect the four languages. That’s great!

            And you are correct. Paramount’s not so bad.

            I’d also rather not speculate on Jake at this juncture. For one reason, I don’t think the Internet is done with him even though I am. I have better things to do in my life than continue to argue with someone like him.

            In any case, have a great day, man!

  • Mike Haas

    This is actually, in my view, bad news for the TV side. All indications were last year that when Paramount finished in 2016 on the current trilogy, that creative rights would finally allow CBS and Paramount to come together to produce a new television series – potentially one that was post-Nemesis along the timeline.