The long wait for news on the next cinematic adventure of the Kelvin Timeline Star Trek cast continues, and today Spock actor Zachary Quinto gave another statement of patient anticipation to Entertainment Tonight.

 

If I had [an update] I would give it to you. I’m expecting [Trek 4] to be true, but it’s always this way.

It’s like, ‘Yes, we’re going to do it!’ but then there’s always a process — writing a script being primary among them — and I know that’s what they’re working on now.

I think we’re all really excited to go back and we’ll do that whenever the phone rings and it’s J.J. on the other end.

I mean, it is a process; there’s years between the first few movies, right? I think four years between the first two and at least three between the second and third – so we’re kind of on track.

It was two years ago that we shot the last one [Star Trek Beyond] and it came out last year, so I feel like we’re still in the ‘strike zone.’

Despite fans’ desire to know more about the next Trek film, it’s not a surprise that Paramount has been quiet while the ramp-up to CBS’s Star Trek: Discovery continues through this summer.

The two companies famously were contractually required to keep the Discovery and Star Trek Beyond release dates separated by at least six months, and any news on Trek 4 may not come until well into the first year of Discovery… or possibly not until after the first season concludes early next year.

When asked about a possible appearance on Star Trek: Discovery — a show that will be set not only years before the Kirk-Spock days aboard the Enterprise, but in a different universe than the current films — Quinto admitted he’s “probably not” interested, but that his presence really isn’t necessary.

It’s such a unique experience and it’s such a unique character and I feel like I wouldn’t know how to [do it,] but who knows?

But I’m excited to see it, I’m happy that they’re doing it and I think it’s an incredible universe. There is an endless combination of possibilities and stories and characters and I don’t feel like they’ll need me.

I feel like they’ll be able to create an opulent world of much drama on their own.

Stay tuned for whatever Star Trek 4 news may show up – whenever that may happen – here at TrekCore!

  • ¡ zer0 !

    Hopefully that means they’re writing it now.

    • FightingMongooses
      • Dan King

        They look defeated after seeing a sneak preview of Orrville lol

        • FightingMongooses

          Supposedly they’re working on the outline or pitch for the next Star Trek movie in that pic.

          • TUP

            I thought it was Orci’s former Trek 3 writing partners that were working on a script.

            They need fresh blood. I like Pegg and Beyond had better character moments but it was still not good enough.

          • Mrplatitude

            That was what Paramount said around the release of Beyond, but there hasn’t been further mention of them since. I think when that picture above was posted it seemed like Pegg and Jung might be either assisting or had taken over. But it is hard to say since there hasn’t been anything definitive from Bad Robot or Paramount since that initial announcement.

          • TIG1701

            Because the movie is on life support at this point. That pic came out 7 months ago. Simon Pegg is on social media every 3 days and not a single word about the movie since.

          • The Chadwick

            Yes, last announced JD Payne and Patrick McKay are working on Star Trek 4, but that is old news and who knows what has changed since then. Payne and McKay were working on the story which was to be Star Trek 3 but then that was set aside for Pegg and Jung to pen Star Trek Beyond. Apparently what Payne and McKay wrote for Trek 3 is what is being used for Star Trek 4. As far as we know (since last report) Pegg, Jung, McKay and Payne are all contributing to writing Star Trek 4.

          • FightingMongooses

            I wonder if it’s the film that was too “Trekkie”?

          • FightingMongooses
          • FightingMongooses

            Yeah, there are rumors that they’re dusting off a script that was originally intended for film 3. I have zero interest in anymore Orci/Kurtzman stuff.

            I think Pegg and Lin are a great combination. I’d like very much to see what they’d do without studio pressure to do a big dumb action movie.

          • TUP

            Id be very surprised if they re-used an Orci script. The studio seemed to want nothing to do with him and his behavior didnt come across as very professional.

          • startrekker1701

            Yeah it fell wide of the mark sadly

  • Jason F. Perry

    While we’re waiting for the “opulent world of much drama” when DSC begins we can all still enjoy the opulent world of much drama here on the message board and various other Trek message boards in awaiting the arrival of the new series.

    • ¡ zer0 !

      Anything new trek is bad and anything that rips off trek is automatically good

      ^ Star trek “Fans”

      • clbrown

        Straw man, huh?

        How about “Anything that honors why we love Star Trek in the first place is good, and anything that doesn’t is bad.”

        • ¡ zer0 !

          which is why people were shitting on Discovery from the initial mention of a new tv series and every shred of info thereafter and praising Orville and Axanar to high heavens for being “proper” Star Trek…

          One guy on some forum just would not back down praising Axanar even when it was proved to him that Alec Peters was a known con man who kept most of the money he raised for himself.

          …because ” at least its not JJ AMIRITE “

          • clbrown

            Well, you’ve already constructed, in your mind, a complete world-view, and facts to the contrary be damned, right?

            I don’t know those people, and have nothing to do with those people. I don’t even know if the people whom you just described even exist. I’ve certainly never met any of them, but I’ll grant, it’s POSSIBLE that they are really out there.

            Which has LITERALLY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE POINT I MADE.

            You’re so dedicated to arguing “your position” that you can’t seem to pay attention to what else is actually being said. Every point made is “one to be defeated” it seems.

            Nope.

            I have high hopes for this series. I’m still not entirely convinced that it’s going to be a disaster… just as I was originally somewhat hopeful re: Jeffrey Jacob Abrams’ version of Star Trek.

            It took seeing what he actually did (keeping the trappings but throwing the core of what I loved into the garbage) that I came to really dislike his work. Seeing his other efforts (Fringe, Cloverfield, etc) just confirm that he’s a vastly overrated guy, who got to where he is due to nepotism rather than “earning his way there.”

            The high hopes I have for this series are dropping, however, fairly quickly… due to the “look at us and how inclusive we’re being” song and dance, and the near-100%-rejection of the trappings of classic Star Trek design principles.

            Note, I said PRINCIPLES, not “specific features.” I don’t care if a bridge in a new series has cast-resin-jellybean buttons, or touch panels… as long as it has the same STYLISTIC feel as the original, so we can convince ourselves “this is what it was always really supposed to look like.”

            Costuming, same thing… as long as it looks like it “fits” in the same stylistic sense… it’s fine. The J.J. films got this right when doing the “on-ship” uniforms, but went through a totally nonsensical, and “non-uniform” series of flip-flops whenever off-ship. The only complaint I had there was the silly little tiny-chevrons-printed-on-the-fabric, which was just extra money down the tubes, and contributed NOTHING to the actual storytelling!

            We don’t know how this series’ storytelling will work. We know that they have “TOS-ish” phasers, which so far look promising. And I’m OK with the design of the ships, overall… though I dislike the bridge having a “window” (one of the stupidest things J.J. Trek introduced… in real life, a window into space would provide ZERO visibility… all you’d be able to see would be blackness, 99.9% of the time, unless you turned off all interior lighting!) These aren’t automobiles… you “drive” them using complex navigational systems, not “line of sight,” and a VIEWSCREEN should be a fancy computer monitor, capable of producing whatever imagery you want (including, if you like, a holographic representation of what a front-windows might show, if one existed.)

            I’m less happy with the uniforms… not because they don’t look exactly like Pike-era uniforms made in the 1960s, but because they INTENTIONALLY DEVIATE from that approach, entirely. You could do a “modern” uniform with the same basic feel as the Pike-era costumes… again, J.J’s team got that right, at least, for the TOS-era costumes.

            But… all that’s set-dressing. What really counts is the storytelling.

            And that’s what I’m most worried about.

            What I meant when I said “what I love about the original,” I meant the STORYTELLING. While I’m no fan of Gene Roddenberry as a person, he had some great ideas, and I AM a fan of Gene Coon’s storytelling, in particular, as well as John D.F. Black, Dorothy Fontana, and the rest of the writing team (including folks like Ellison who did one-off scripts, many of which were terrific).

            This is what Roddenberry got so WRONG when he started TNG… and why, eventually, Paramount had to fire him and replace him… keeping him on in title only. He lost track of the STORYTELLING core of Star Trek, and started pushing an agenda, and a philosophical core which the original never had… the “humanity is perfected” line… which made for TERRIBLE storytelling.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Despite your “term paper” here, neither you nor I have enough information to judge whether Discovery will have good storytelling or not…FACT!

          • clbrown

            “Term paper…” again demonstrating that you are a child… got it.

            Weak attempts at “mockery” which you think will bolster your own position (but which only make you look bad)… got it.

            “Arguing,” not with anything actually said, but by a point you toss out which wasn’t made by anyone… aka a “straw man”… got it.

            Care to try for another cliched trope? Call me a nazi, for instance?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Love how you turn “term paper” into me calling you a “Nazi”…thus in a lame attempt to avoid answering my factual point that neither you nor I have enough information to judge whether Discovery will have good storytelling or not.

            Sigh! OK, well go ahead and pull out your “dude” and “child” shtick again, because at least that gives me a chuckle. 🙂

          • clbrown

            It’s not me who resorted to childish, bratty name-calling. It was you. I’m merely pointing out that your behavior is not worthy of anyone past grade school. And that’s because it really, really isn’t.

            And I did not “attempt to avoid” your “point.” In fact, the very fact that you raised that “point” as a “counter-point” was your own straw-man effort. Disagree? Then by all means, show me where, in any of my posts on this topic, I said that “Discovery’s storytelling is not good.”

            Come on, show us all where I said that, justifying your own “counter-argument” which is not a “counter” to anything I’ve ever said (or inferred, or implied, or even thought).

            Your “factual point” is not only not a counter-argument to any point I’ve made… but if you had even basic reading comprehension skills, you’d have noticed my having written THIS, well before you said that as a “response.”

            **********************

            I have high hopes for this series. I’m still not entirely convinced that it’s going to be a disaster… just as I was originally somewhat hopeful re: Jeffrey Jacob Abrams’ version of Star Trek.

            It took seeing what he actually did (keeping the trappings but throwing the core of what I loved into the garbage) that I came to really dislike his work. Seeing his other efforts (Fringe, Cloverfield, etc) just confirm that he’s a vastly overrated guy, who got to where he is due to nepotism rather than “earning his way there.”

            The high hopes I have for this series are dropping, however, fairly quickly… due to the “look at us and how inclusive we’re being” song and dance, and the near-100%-rejection of the trappings of classic Star Trek design principles.

            Note, I said PRINCIPLES, not “specific features.” I don’t care if a bridge in a new series has cast-resin-jellybean buttons, or touch panels… as long as it has the same STYLISTIC feel as the
            original, so we can convince ourselves “this is what it was always really supposed to look like.”

            ….

            But… all that’s set-dressing. What really counts is the storytelling.

            And that’s what I’m most worried about.

            What I meant when I said “what I love about the original,” I meant the STORYTELLING. While I’m no fan of Gene Roddenberry as a person, he had some great ideas, and I AM a fan of Gene Coon’s storytelling, in particular, as well as John D.F. Black, Dorothy Fontana, and the rest of the writing team (including folks like Ellison who did one-off scripts, many of which were terrific).

            This is what Roddenberry got so WRONG when he started TNG… and why, eventually, Paramount had to fire him and replace him… keeping him on in title only. He lost track of the STORYTELLING core of Star Trek, and started pushing an agenda, and a philosophical core which the original never had… the “humanity is perfected” line… which made for TERRIBLE storytelling.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Sigh!

            I had no interest in commenting on your points about the uniforms — the topic does not interest me. And I actually agree with your comment about keeping the style, if not the look of things, similar. Kappish?

            Back to my point that you are still ignoring in which I was addressing your final comments on the story where you seems so worried about repeating the GR story-line mistakes from the early TNG period.. My entire point was that for all of your discussion in that lengthy post of yours, at the end of the day, neither your nor I have enough information to judge whether Discovery will have good storytelling or not? Do you agree or disagree with this? It is a simple question.

          • clbrown

            Of course I “agree” with that, since I SAID IT, MYSELF. I was very clear about my position… that I remain hopeful, and care less about set-dressing than about storytelling, but that some of what we’ve seen gives me cause for concern re: that… most notably the “gimmick-focused” stuff that seems to be getting more focus than storytelling, and the pointless total shift in style from previous storytelling set in the same timeframe.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thanks for acknowledging that!

          • DC Forever

            You’ve provide a few “term papers” recently yourself. Just saying.

          • DC Forever

            Your use of the term “nazi” is unacceptable as directed towards another Star Trek fan here.

          • clbrown

            Please read my comment, before responding. I did not refer to him as a “Nazi.” I pointed out that he was engaging in every possible internet-trope, and that I was fully expecting him to pull out the “Godwin’s Law” trope just to make it complete. (That is, that I expected him to call ME by that term.)

            My specific comment was this: “Care to try for another cliched trope? Call me a nazi, for instance?”

          • Pedro Ferreira

            A lot of good points here.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The prequel clip did come out of Axanar though so that’s something.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      As long as I don’t get unfairly banned due to harassment here from certain users I’m ok.

  • Dan King

    Please, no more. Discovery bombed badly and lost money. What fool would fund a fourth movie?

    • Bifash

      “Please, no more. Discovery bombed badly and lost money.”

      WHAT??

      • pittrek

        He meant Beyond

        • ¡ zer0 !

          Beyond didn’t perform as well as Into Darkness but it’s still the third highest grossing Trek movie ever.

          • pittrek

            Production Budget: $185 million
            Worldwide gross : $343,471,816

            185 million x 2~3 = something between 370-555 million.

            Meaning the movie had to gross something between 370-555 millions to only break even. So yes, it bombed pretty badly and lost the studio money – which is a shame since this is the first movie since Insurrection which I actually liked.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            The majority of films today don’t make money until their ancillary releases. People make way too big of a deal about the domestic box office when, at the end of the day, there’s a lot more that goes into it. http://archives.cjr.org/cover_story/gross_misunderstanding.php

          • clbrown

            Not true. Most films are pretty inexpensive to make. Only the “big” films work that way.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Okay, fine. I’ll say “The majority of blockbusters…” as opposed to “The majority of films…”

            Last I checked, these new Star Trek movies are blockbusters. Barring that one correction, the statement and the article stand.

          • clbrown

            Well, for example, “The Avengers” is treated as a blockbuster because it made back its entire production cost in the first week of domestic release. “Wonder Woman” did well, but took twice as long to make back its production costs. Both hit that “must make twice as much as it cost to produce in first run commercial domestic release” easily, and rapidly, and everything beyond that is “gravy” to the studios… hence both being considered “blockbusters.”

            On the other hand, merely being “expensive” does not make a film a “blockbuster.” “Battlefield Earth” and “Waterworld” are perhaps the two best known examples of that. Huge, expensive films, which were disasters for the studios which invested in them.

            Star Trek ’09 and its sequels don’t QUITE sink to the depths either of those did, but they’ve failed to produce as well as the studios expect them to.

            The rule is simple… first-run domestic release… twice the production cost must be recouped. The studios get their initial dollar back, plus another dollar in profit. Anything less than that, and it’s not worth their investment.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            From the article I posted above: “The screenwriter William Goldman famously explained the economics of Hollywood this way: Nobody knows anything. By focusing on the box-office race that is spoon-fed to them each week, journalists may entertain their audiences, but they are missing the real story. By neglecting the changing economics of Hollywood—and the politics that flow from it—they leave their audience, much like a movie audience, in the dark about what is really shaping Hollywood.”

            William Godman is an award-winning screenwriter who has worked in the business for many years. No offense intended, but I’ll take his statement over this twice the production cost stuff I see over and over again from armchair box office analysts.

          • FightingMongooses

            The Shawshank Redemption was a box office flop. So obviously that film is worthless and should be forgotten.

            /s

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Obviously.

            Lol

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Blade Runner…nuff said

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You mean to tell me that this William Godman person actually knows more about how 21st century movie funding streams work in the real world today than this anonymous Trekmovie.com poster, clbrown?

            😉

          • clbrown

            Man, you really are a brat, kid… you know that?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I know “expert opinion” when I see it, and it ain’t you, dude. 🙂

          • clbrown

            Riiiight. I’m not claiming to have “special understanding” of some higher level of reality.

            I’m talking about how the studios decide what projects to spend their money on, according to THE STUDIOS THEMSELVES.

            I’m sorry that this little interjection of fact upsets your sense of entitlement as much as it clearly does, but that doesn’t matter.

            Paramount is not happy with the return on investment that J.J.s Star Trek films gave them. This is simply a FACT. That’s the reason that a possible “ST(r) IV” hasn’t been green-lit yet. They are trying to figure out whether it makes sense to continue to throw more money after bad.

            The fact that any future movie will include radically rebuilt sets, etc… since the “original” ship is now destroyed, and any new art director will want to create something new, not reuse (or minimally redress) existing, remaining sets. All the money they’ve spent on the last three films is basically a wash now… and they’ll be starting largely from scratch with any fourth film in this series.

            Paramount has to decide “will we make enough profit on another film to make it worth our investors’ while.”

            And they way they determine this is by comparing the revenue produced by a the films so far in the franchise to other films they could spend their money on instead.

            The J.J. Trek films have been exorbitantly expensive, and haven’t provided the return on investment that the studio heads are REQUIRED to produce for the owners of said studios (mainly stockholders through various levels of ownership, not “direct ownership” mind you).

            If the films could be made a lot less expensively… like, as I pointed out before, ST-TWOK was… then a smaller gross could still result in a much more profitable investment.

            What the studio heads are looking at, right now, is “can someone make a Star Trek film for a much smaller amount, which will earn as much box office as the last three films earned?”

            If the answer to that is “yes,” then they’ll green-light that film. If it’s not… they won’t.

            It’s really not that complicated. It requires no “expert” level of understanding, and it’s not “opinion.” It’s simple fact.

            Make a less expensive film, with a story which the audience will be into, and avoid throwing money around like there’s no tomorrow (as Abrams and his team did)… and you could get a major success out of it.

            What part of this is so OFFENSIVE to you? Is it that you simply can’t bear having anyone disagree with you on a subject you have declared yourself to be “the oracle” on?

            Please, by all means, tell everyone here why we should listen to anything YOU have to say? All you’ve managed to do, so far, is produce unsupported (by either fact or by simple logic) declarations, and to produce ineffectual insults and put-downs. Neither of which makes you seem like anything other than what I’m convinced you are… a spoiled child.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Unsupported? You are the one dismissed the William Goldman quote that was introduced by another poster here and basically said you knew better. Yet you didn’t provide any actual referenced citations here other than basically, “trust me?”

            Goldman is a referenced expert. All of your stuff looks like fan conjecture to me (did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?) — sorry!

            Next?

          • clbrown

            No, I said that the way that STUDIOS look at things is how I described it. How a SCREENWRITER looks at things… being on the other side of things than the studio… is, not surprisingly, not the same.

            A screenwriter is an artist, who wants to made his vision become real. Studios are entities which are in business, not to make art, but to make MONEY.

            And yes, the more you speak as if you’re a juvenile, the more I’ll refer to you as a child.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “No, I said that the way that STUDIOS look at things”

            Provide ONE REFERENCE (with a link) that supports that movie studios are using the 2x rule still today (and BTW, as I mentioned in my other post to you, it was the 2.5x rule, not 2x, and it is further tweaked by Int. vs Dom B.O.).

            Come on, surely you can provide one reference to back up your claims that studios today are still using that ROI calculation

            JUST ONE CITATION PLEASE?

            “And yes, the more you speak as if you’re a juvenile, the more I’ll refer to you as a child.”

            Pot calling the kettle black. You keep posting how supposedly immature I am, yet you keep getting in the snide personal attack quips. Don’t think that others can’t see how obvious this is. At least when I make a snide remark, I am direct about it and don’t pretend I am on a higher moral ground. I also try to use humor in my snide remarks, where you seem to just be nasty, like with that completely off base Nazi remark. No problem though as we are adults here…oh wait a minute, I am a child – sorry, I forgot! 🙂

          • Eskay

            Looks like CL is not going to provide a single reference in response to your challenge?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Can’t say I’m surprised.

          • clbrown

            Goldman’s line may make more sense than they studio model, or it might not, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is how the studios do business.

          • DC Forever

            Just an observation. If you demonstrated that you had some sources to quote to support your position, like Your Worst Nightmare has done here, your position might get more traction. Otherwise, it just comes across as a well meaning fan’s opinion, which is fine, but by no means conclusive.

          • clbrown

            Well, my friend in the studio finance department (not a studio head, but someone who actually runs these numbers) would have to let me mention her name, in order for that to happen. Since she’s one of those who maintains a strict “privacy” mode on everything she does (including her facebook being hidden except to friends, and so forth) I doubt she’ll be agreeable.

            Still, I’ll ask.

            In any case, I haven’t been making my own statements on the basis of “authority,” so a source shouldn’t really matter. I’ve been making them on the basis of logic. That is, that the studios want to put their (limited) resources into the places which will provide them the biggest bang for the buck, and that they determine this (as a standard practice) based upon a fairly even-handed metric which allows them to compare movies… past and present alike… in a similar fashion.

            It is true that there are limitations to the existing measurement model… but the people in charge seem to really prefer that, which is why all the trades, all the studio spokesmen, and pretty much all the non-creative types, always talk according to that same metric.

            Our friends here keep implying that I’m “making this up” on my own… or, that I’m somehow “behind the times.” The source provided for why this is “wrong” is a screenwriter… not someone who is on the STUDIO side of things, but rather someone who is trying to argue that the studio system (as it exists right now) isn’t accurately reflecting what SHOULD be measured.

            Studios want to know… NOW… how well their investment is returning. They are uninterested in hearing “let’s wait five years and then figure it out.” They want real-time numbers… and want to know how well their film investment did the moment that first-run release is done with. They treat Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/etc as “secondary revenue streams” and while they LOVE getting that revenue, they don’t count that in their “comparisons” of how movies did. (As a side note… disk sales and streaming sales do tend to parallel the theatrical ticket sales, and I’m unaware of any case when a movie which did terribly at the box office went gang-busters for disk and streaming sales afterwards… are you?)

            My argument was on a logical basis. I understand that our friends here want to argue on emotional grounds… and that’s fine, if that’s all they’re capable of doing. I have no interest in that, however. I made my case, I pointed out why there has not yet been a green-light for a fourth JJTrek film yet, and what needs to happen (convincing the studio that they can make a movie much less expensively which will draw in at least as much viewership) in order for that green-light to be given.

            This isn’t “what I want.” It’s just common sense. The studios want to get the most return for their invested dollar, and with the last three films… OK, the last FIVE films, honestly… they haven’t.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Spot on!

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            Goldman’s statement that we don’t know a thing about how the economics of Hollywood work makes a ton of sense, particularly when we don’t ignore the money taken in from foreign markets, DVD, Blu-Ray, digital download, first-run streaming, pay cable and network releases.

            Look, I don’t know if Star Trek Beyond is a flop or not. Neither do you or anyone else on this board. Was your suggestion of box office mechanics commonplace 30 years ago? Sure. But the entertainment world has changed.

            We probably aren’t going to come to an agreement on this because we both seem set in our ways. I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

          • clbrown

            I just want to re-emphasize the point, however, that this isn’t “my way” of measuring movie performance. It’s the way the studios do it… they’ve done it this way historically and they still do it this way today. If it’s “wrong,” that’s on the studios, not on me, or anyone else positing it.

            You’re correct, insofar as we can’t really come up with an accurate measure of just how much this film will eventually pull in. That’s EXACTLY why they continue to use the tried-and-true method, which they CAN measure, accurately, in real time and in a way which accurately compares relative performance between different films.

            It may not tell them how much the film may, in ten years, have brought in… but it does tell them how well a film has performed relative to other films during the same time period, relative to the film’s release.

            It allows them to compare, say, the numbers from “The Sting” or “Magnum Force” to movies released right now… in a meaningful way. And it allows them to compare the entire series of films released during 2016 to each other, also in a meaningful way, or during May 2017.

            One of the most important features of a “metric” is that it MUST BE MEASURABLE, in a consistent and reliable manner, after all.

            Is Goldman’s essay accurate, in terms of how we can’t really say how much money a film will bring in over the entire length of its existence, well past the theatrical release? Sure. Is it helpful, as in “providing a means of coming up with a more accurate methodology?” Not so much. He’s saying “the metric used today is flawed, because… (reasons).” Which is true. But he’s not proposing a new metric which could replace it, must less one which would allow historical comparisons to be made.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Again, Goldman is a referenced source.

            You must agree yourself that you were not able to provide here a corresponding referenced source to back up your insistence that the historical ways of calculation to determine if a movie is financially successful are still applicable today?

            This will be my final post on this topic.

          • DC Forever

            Agreed. Industry quoted sources are more signifant than just all of us fans posting our opinions.

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            You can re-emphasize all you want. You’re not going to change my mind. Particularly when it comes to the fact that the formula doesn’t make a ton of sense considering the fact that domestic box office numbers have been on a steady decline while more emphasis is being put on the ever-growing importance of international markets. Plus you keep suggesting this formula is still used? By who? Where’s your source?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You’ve more than made your point, and you provided a key sourced reference. Well done!

          • clbrown

            The term “blockbuster” is defined by how profitable the film is, though, not by how big the production was.

            How do you define “blockbuster?”

            Fyi, the term originally came from the idea of “lines to get in wrapping around the block, and needing to go to the next block, too.” It meant MASSIVE, and usually UNEXPECTED, interest in seeing the film.

          • DC Forever

            I don’t know about blockbusters. But the first 2 movies were very successful, especially given the additional revenue streams that Paramount has garnered since the theatrical release.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No, your view is like 20 years out of date, dude, no offense.

          • clbrown

            Nope. Your views on this are those of a child, “dude.”

            “No offense.”

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Wow, that really hurt. LOL

          • clbrown

            Wasn’t intended to “hurt.” It was intended to demonstrated how STUPID your own attempts at “put-downs” actually were, by reflecting them, directly, back onto you.

            You are attacking the messenger… rather than discussing the message.

            SURE, you “know people in the industry.” Please, by all means, name some names. If you name one I know, I’ll be sure to ask them. If you name one I don’t, I might ask them anyway, just to see if they claim “Why, yes, that’s my bestestest pal” or, more likely, respond with a resounding “Who?”

            You’re on the warpath here. I didn’t start the “conflict” here, you did… by your unjustifiably snide, self-important, and still, nevertheless, rather STUPID comments.

            You have studiously avoided actually discussing the POINTS MADE. You seem to not like the points I’ve posited.

            Fine.

            The price of a “no” is a constructive alternative.

            If you think I”m wrong about how studios analyze the success or failure of a film, and think you know how it REALLY works…

            … well, tell everyone how YOU “know” it “really works.” Be specific, by all means.

            Can’t do that? Your “appeal to authority” and “attempt to win by insults” and so forth, frankly, only make you seem LESS impressive, every time you do it.

            Make your counter-argument. Or, if you’re incapable of doing that, do another “appeal to authority” and then an attempt to “silence the opposition” by using “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” (not true, but a widely held belief in certain circles), and avoid ever actually defining your own position.

            The counter-argument is the response which wins you a modicum of credibility. The “attack, distract and deflect” response, however… not so much.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “You are attacking the messenger… rather than discussing the message.”

            DUDE, read your post here — aren’t you doing exactly this, but in a much longer-winded post than I?

          • clbrown

            You really dislike the idea that people who hold the pursestrings don’t want to spend money that won’t make them money, huh?

            You seriously want to blame Beyond’s disappointing results on THE STUDIO? Or on WHEN IT CAME OUT?

            Right.

            So, no one wants to go out during the Olympics? Is that your argument?

            Or are you really claiming that no one wants to see movies more than once a quarter?

            And are you claiming, seriously, that Paramount Pictures needs to explain to the audiences “this is what Star Trek is?”

            (sigh)

            If the film disappointed, it’s not because (a) no one knew it was out, or (b) no one wanted to get out of the house on a Friday night. And it’s not because “no one saw the trailers.”

            It’s because THE MOVIE COST A MINT TO MAKE (something you dismiss, entirely, above, which is just IDIOTIC), and that the audience wasn’t all that excited by it. They went to the theater, picked a movie to see… and picked something else, far more often than the filmmakers AND the studio folks assumed in advance.

            Word of mouth… the real, key part of “movie marketing”… was remarkably lackluster. If a movie no one has heard of comes out, and it’s good… people tell their friends, and more and more people go. This is not a “new” dynamic, it’s been the case for as long as movies have been around.

            People honestly just weren’t all that impressed by the movie. In my own “water cooler” overheard conversations, I repeatedly heard people MAKE FUN OF the whole “Beasty Boys conquer the aliens” bit… not in the “we enjoyed it” sense, but the “OH MY GOD IT WAS SO INCREDIBLY STUPID” sense. And rather than being “wowed” by the destruction of yet another Enterprise, people were making jokes about Detroit turning out the next model (apparently, people keep starships for three years, with multiple accidents, before finally totaling them?)

            The movie was actually a bit better than I’d been led to believe by everything I’d seen previously, but it was still… on a par with “ST-V” in terms of overall quality.

            Simon Pegg should have known better, since he’s made his name from LOW BUDGET movies which grossed relatively well, and thus were VERY profitable.

            Ask him about the ratio of production cost to box office gross… being the “insider” that you are, that should be no problem, huh?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Finally, you are admitting that this mostly about your not liking the movie. I get that. Why didn’t you just start off with this last night? Now I get where you are really coming from on this as an upset fan. The movie was OK, but not great — that is my opinion. STID was not great either, but it had a “big movie” level of gravitas that Beyond lacked. ST 2009 I love though.

            Nevertheless, anyone paying attention could conclude that the Beyond marketing campaign was both late and not up to the level of the marketing of STID and 2009. Hell, nobody outside of Trek fans knew the movie was coming out until that Rihana song came out — less than 2 months before the movie. You are right — the movie did cost a lot (when did I say I didn’t realize that?), but then, they completely cheaped out on the marketing (due to the studio’s financial implosion, obviously).

            And sorry, but if you are really going to claim that that mid-July relase date was a good choice, well, I am just laughing here then if you are going to really insist on that — it’s painfully obvious that that date was a horrid choice. You are the only person I have ever heard that will defend that release date.

          • clbrown

            A mid-July release date… in the middle of summer vacation, when people generally have more free time and are more focused on recreation… yeah, sure, a terrible time to release a film. (sigh)

            You want to pretend that the release date hurt the film. Git it. Name a date which would have made the film a resounding success. Explain why.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I would have delayed the opening until Wed Nov 23rd, and then started a marketing campaign beginning with a Superbowl ad in Feb, and then having a major Comicon presence last July, and then reinforced all late summer through fall with special events, TV specials, international appearances,, etc. to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek as a way to promote Beyond.

          • DC Forever

            I would have like to have seen this approach. I do feel like they left perhaps $100 million on the table due to bad marketing and that release date.

          • clbrown

            OH, and you just made up that supposed “admission.” I said nothing of the sort. A weak attempt on your part.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “I repeatedly heard people MAKE FUN OF the whole “Beasty Boys conquer the aliens” bit… not in the “we enjoyed it” sense, but the “OH MY GOD IT WAS SO INCREDIBLY STUPID” sense.”

            “people were making jokes about Detroit turning out the next model (apparently, people keep starships for three years, with multiple accidents, before finally totaling them?)”

            “on a par with “ST-V” in terms of overall quality.”

            “Simon Pegg should have known better,”

            You were saying?

          • clbrown

            The first two comments are about other peoples’ expressed viewpoints, which I overheard.

            Explaining, again, why “word of mouth” did this film no favors. You’re not a moron, so you already understood the point I was making. Which makes your pretend-misunderstanding not an “error” but overt deceit.

            On a par with STV is only an insult if you consider STV to be totally without merit. I don’t. Clearly you do. I think it was lacking, but not without its redeeming qualities… just like “Beyond.”

            And yes, Pegg should have known that low-cost, character driven stories work better than uber-expensive, FX-laden movies. He has openly mocked that, and never fallen into that trap himself, before. “Spaced,” “Sean of the Dead,” “Hot Fuzz”… all cheap to make, all entirely character driven, and all wildly successful. His two failures, so far, are this film and “Paul,” and neither was TERRIBLE, just expensive and losing track of the fundamentals in favor of gimmickry and flash.

          • Eskay

            if you did like Beyond, you sure as heck don’t give that impression with these types of remarks.

          • clbrown

            So, everything is binary to you? Either you love something or hate it?

            I thought Beyond was mildly entertaining, but that it had a lot of flaws. I liked it better than ST’09 or Darkness. And yes, I think it was about at the same level as ST-V, which I thought was mildly entertaining but had a lot of flaws.

          • DC Forever

            Well, you certainly have a strange way about talking about a movie you like. Any objective person, reading your earlier comments on Beyond, could have easily concluded that you didn’t like it. Just saying.

          • clbrown

            DC, you’re thinking in binary terms… while I’m thinking in analog terms. It’s not a matter of simply “100% liking” or “100% disliking” something.

            When I said I view “Beyond” as on par with ST-V, I meant that very seriously. There were parts of ST-V which I think were actually quite good, and quite entertaining. And parts which made me groan. The same applies to “Beyond.”

            It is, I think, the best of the three JJTrek films… but it has parts which are utterly groan-worthy (not the least of which is the “Beasty Boys destroys the enemy” bit). It lacks the “Red Matter” McGuffin, or the utter stupidity of “Nero’s” behavior in the first film… and it has characterizations which at least START to remind us of the characters from the original series, in my opinion for the very first time. It has defects, but they’re not quite enough to ruin the film for me entirely, unlike the bits from the first two JJTrek movies. And I was VERY pleased to see McCoy given SOMETHING to do besides provide background one-liners… even if what he was given to do included things which he shouldn’t have been doing, and shouldn’t have been any good at doing, like flying a fighter craft and shooting down hostiles.

            So, I thought it was “OK.” Not “perfect” but not “terrible.” A solid 50%, for me, just like ST-V was. Entertaining, but not something I feel compelled to see again anytime soon.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I mean, seriously, does he really sound like someone who actually liked Beyond? Who talks like that about a movie they like.

            He’s covering his tracks because he refuses to admit that I have identified the real issue here for him — he simply doesn’t like the movie!

          • DC Forever

            The marketing on Beyond was abysmal. Too little and too late.

          • clbrown

            Oh, and “dude?” Anyone who seriously thinks that this is really “Californian” lingo at this point clearly doesn’t live there. The Jeff Spicoli routine, the “surfer dude” culture… long since past, except for a tiny subset of the unemployed in and around Venice…

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Nice try. Have lived and worked here since 94. Everyone in the business uses a “dude” now and then.

            Whoops! 🙂

          • clbrown

            Right. Is that really you, Denny?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You go right on believing differently. LOL

          • DC Forever

            Yea, it’s prevalent.

          • DC Forever

            For what it’s worth, I live in Central California, and “dude” is still in frequent use in my area.

          • The Chadwick

            Exactly, looking at domestic box office and assuming its only America that counts is shortsighted. Its global sales of box office, DVD/blu-ray sales and merchandising as a whole that determine the success of a film.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            YEP !!!

          • GIBBS v2

            Star Trek properties have some of the lowest “tails” in the industry. While it do not do gang busters at the box office I promise you it did not lose a dime.

          • pittrek

            Well I gave you numbers and not promises, so …

          • The Chadwick

            Lets not forget that merchandise, CD’s, blu-ray/DVD/digital sales, and Netflix also accounts for profit made off a film. so one cannot simply go by box office and ignore the other money a film will bring in.

            And from what I have heard, it was Paramounts highest grossing film for 2016, which means their other films bombed even more. I highly doubt Beyond is the last Kelvin film.

          • pittrek

            Of course. That’s probably why they’re waiting, to see how much the movie will make on video, before they make a final decision.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            EXACTLY !!!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            It will definitely eventually break even.

          • DC Forever

            Good point!

          • Snap

            Not to mention that the promotional and marketing budget would be factored in as well. On a personal level, I couldn’t care less about a movie’s performance in the theatre, whether it’s a massive success or a bomb has no bearing on whether or not I enjoy the movie.

            Case in point, Into Darkness had a successful run and it’s the Star Trek movie I hate the most. It’s performance doesn’t change the fact that it’s pretty much the only Trek movie I have no interest rewatching.

            With Beyond, however, it’s too bad it didn’t live up to expectations as (despite how I feel about Into Darkness) I really like this cast and would like to see them get another movie.

          • pittrek

            Well but the people who are responsible for green-lighting projects DO care about the movie’s performance. That’s the only criteria. Or the main at least. Quality of a movie is not that important if a movie bombs.
            Again, I want a new movie, preferably written by Simon Pegg and with Orci/Kurtzmann/Abrams nowhere in sight, because this was the first Trek film I liked since Insurrection, but I am not that optimistic.

          • Snap

            Which is why I said “on a personal level,” of course the pencil pushers will be more concerned about the performance of whatever product they put out rather than the quality, but I’m a consumer and couldn’t care less about whether a movie grossed $100 million or $100,000.

            I liked Trek 09 for what it was, though I honestly could have done without much of the lens flare in the movie. I know it has become somewhat cliche to criticise the lens flare at this point, it doesn’t change that it was very distracting at points.

            Beyond was something of a strange beast, it was definitely better than the rehashed tripe of Into Darkness, but the changes they made to the Enterprise for the movie actually made it look worse. I’ve made it no secret that I have never liked the look of the Abrams Enterprise, but the alterations threw off the lines of the ship, one of the biggest being narrowing the nacelle struts and sweeping them back which left an awkward empty space right in the middle. The problem there is they didn’t adjust the position of the nacelles on the struts in order to compensate, I imagine the TMP-era Enterprise would have looked awkward and wrong had the nacelles attached to the struts at the same point as the original TV version.

            The only other aesthetic version of Beyond which I didn’t care for over the first two Abrams movies were actually the uniforms. I didn’t like the high collar which largely obstructed the black trim beneath. Otherwise, I also liked Beyond the best of the recent offerings and, like I said, I like this cast and feel there is still more they can do.

          • clbrown

            “Grossing” is not what studios look at, though. No, really, it’s not.

            Profitability is what studios look at. That is, the ratio of “money spent” to “money earned.”

            In general, studios treat any film which fails to earn back its production cost twice over, in first-run domestic release as a “failure.” (They acknowledge it’s a “bomb” if it doesn’t ever earn back its production costs, even including foreign releases and streaming/disk sales.)

            Star Trek ’09 was a moderate success by that standard… it BARELY made 2x its production costs, and NOT in first-run domestic. They were one of the first films doing simultaneous foreign release, and so they count western-Europe, Japan, and China sales as part of their “initial release” numbers. And by that (fudged) measure, they were a “success.”

            Into Darkness failed even on that count, actually LOSING MONEY in the domestic market, and never hitting that 2x return on investment during its entire theatrical release window. (It may have finally hit it now, based upon the trickle of streaming/disk sales, but I can’t say that for certain.) And that’s even with “Darkness” having a simultaneous worldwide release (so they counted the entire world in measuring that, which honestly, does make more sense, but “skews” the results badly).

            Beyond did even more poorly.

            Yes, all three movies brought in a fair amount of boxoffice. But the films were so INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE that they’d have had to bring in far more for the studio investment in their production to be fully justified.

            Remember… the studio isn’t a limitless source of cash for “artists” to make use of. It’s a business. It has a limited pool of money, and lots of filmmakers clamoring to get a piece of that pie.

            The amount of money used to make one of the J.J. Trek films would have produced a DOZEN films at the scale of “The Wrath of Khan” (adjusted for inflation). And thirty or forty “10 Cloverfield Lanes” or other “small” movies.

            If you spend a dollar on a film, you want to get that dollar back, AND get another dollar in return. That’s the measure that the studios use. It doesn’t matter to them if they spend every dollar they have on one movie, split it up between hundreds of movies. All they care about is “getting the original dollar back and getting another one as profit.”

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            How quaint that you only count initial theatrical release box office numbers.

          • clbrown

            I’m not the one doing the counting. The studios are. And this is how they do it.

            They don’t care about what you want, or don’t want. They care about their business. And this
            Is their business model.

            Don’t like it? Take it up with them.

          • The Chadwick

            Don’t forget Paramounts highest grossing movie for that year!

          • iMike

            Beyond is my favorite of all three JJ Trek films. The story is more cohesive and you can tell the actors had really settled into their characters by the time production/filming rolled around. Beyond also scored well above – IMO – Trek 09 and Into Darkness in terms of storytelling, direction, and the lushness of the cinematography.

            While Trek certainly doesn’t qualify as a “nice market,” a Trek film is never going to make the money that a general audience box office film will pull, nor should it ever be expected to.

    • TUP

      Yeah, seems pretty clear the studio hasnt made a decision either way (and no decision is often a negative) and are waiting for a script and budget analysis before considering going ahead.

      Anyone know when the cast options expire?

      • The Chadwick

        Not to mention Paramount or Viacom just hired a new CEO, president whatever who will be rearranging things in house. But he did say Star Trek is their tentpole franchise. I highly doubt they will scrap it. They will either continue with another Kelvin movie or a different type of Trek film. Either way, we’ll get another Trek movie.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Agreed — that is what is holding things back.

    • The Chadwick

      Maybe so, but it was Paramounts highest grossing movie for that year! So if that bombed it bombed the least out of Paramounts other 2016 movies. I highly doubt Beyond is the last Kelvin film. They’re not typical trek but their fun, stop hating.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Yea, there will be a fourth once Paramount gets its financial act together.

        They don’t cancel a franchise typically with one bad outing after two big moneymakers. Can you imagine if Paramount has listened to Dan King’s emotional outburst here after Star Trek V bombed; we would never have gotten to see TUC if Dan King had been listened to back then.

        • Dan King

          I don’t want them to cancel the franchise, just the Kelvin universe movies.

          The next movie should be massive in scope like Lord of the Rings movies. 2,3 movies. The perfect subject for the movies is the plot line from the books “Star Trek Destiny” that reveals the origin of the Borg, and their eventual defeat.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I like the Borg origin idea.

          • TIG1701

            I would definitely love another JJ movie if they brought the Borg in. Other than that don’t really give a shit at this point.

      • clbrown

        “Grossing” is only half of the equation. Production cost being the other. The JJ films have all been exhorbitantly expensive. They have to gross a LOT in order to be profitable for the studio.

        And that’s been the problem. They aren’t delivering return-on-investment to the shareholders as well as a pile of smaller movies would… movies which all could have been made, instead of just one JJTrek movie.

        A movie which cost $50,000,000 to make needs to gross a lot less than a movie which cost $500,000,000 to make in order to be profitable.

        And profitability is what counts.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Discovery might as well just take place in the Kelvin timeline since it looks exactly the same.

      • TIG1701

        It was also Paramount’s costliest movie that year as well…crazy how people keep forgetting to mention that part.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Well we need some kind of Star Trek movie in cinemas.

  • Dan King

    There is a rumor going around on the TrekBBS that Scott Bakula has a cameo in the Discovery pilot. A very well known user on that BBS who has a GREAT TRACK RECORD reported this rumor. Claims it will be in the style of Bones in TNG pilot. Seeing off the Discovery.

    • pittrek

      That would be great. TNG pilot had McCoy, DS9 pilot had Picard, VOY pilot had Quark. ENT had at least Cochrane, so it would be great to have somebody from ENT to cameo on DSC

      • TUP

        I’d be all for it. Isnt the “semi-canon” explanation that Archer died after seeing the Enterprise launch? But that was gleaned from zooming in on a screen display?

        Easily retconned to be the Discovery he saw off before dying.

        Would be easier to do with T’Pol as far as the age thing. But if they’ve established that Archer lived very long and was very important to Star Fleet and the Federation, it would be pretty cool to cement that in canon with an appearance.

        • pittrek

          Never heard about that. But I never read any Trek comic book or novel.

    • Since Archer was written as an idiot for much of Enterprise‘s run, I think Discovery would do better to forget that Archer ever existed. 🙂

      • The Chadwick

        Wow, rather harsh. You sound like the Discovery haters. I have never had any problems with any Star Trek. I wouldn’t want to know what its like to deprive myself of ANY Star Trek. I love Enterprise and the character of Archer since day 1 2001.

      • Dan King

        Archer was never meant to be the ideal Captain. He was the first Captain. He had to make things up as he went along. He did not have the luxury of Picard with the prime directive already in place, and a Starfleet he could call on if he needs backup.

        He was the prototype

        • Yes, I know that Archer was supposed to be showing us humankind’s first, tentative forays into space exploration. But I can only conclude that he lived in an alternate universe where science fiction didn’t exist, because the writers had him making truly obvious, boneheaded mistakes. When the audience has clearly thought more about space exploration than the hero, the writers are doing it badly.

          I loved it when Enterprise gave us “Gee, whiz, space is so cool” moments. Unfortunately those were fairly infrequent, whereas Archer’s doing things like bringing his dog to meet a species of alien that had already shown itself to be touchy and easily offended … I had to facepalm.

          I’m angry at the writers, on Archer’s behalf, for making him look like a dope, when Starfleet’s first captain shouldn’t be dumb, no matter how new space exploration is to him.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You hit the key point here — the writing for Enterprise was largely abysmal.

          • Dan King

            Manny Coto saved the show and deserved season 5

          • DC Forever

            Yea, he improved the show a bit, but people kept tuning out over the course of Season 4, with a steady drop in ratings. That goes counter to what one would expect if the show was improving significantly.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Season 4 was a huge improvement over what came before.

    • TUP

      Dan, I dont often use TrekBBS, can you tell me the poster who posted it. Id like to read some of their other tidbits.

    • The Chadwick

      That would be awesome!

    • Barak Aslani

      Although I’m not getting a good vibe about Discovery, anything that grounds it in the lore of the canon tv shows, linking it in with the 50+ year institution of Trek, I welcome. He’s not my favourite captain, in fact, I didn’t warm to him at all but it would be something that would show me the producers aren’t throwing away the Trek I invested in and cared about. I’m not a fan of the JJ-verse, it’s reductive and it’s concept hypocritical. The more TOS and Enterprise can be connected to this series (which stylistically looks so inappropriate) the happier I’ll be.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        How about we all start a new drinking game here, where we have to all drink a shot every time Barak says the Kelvin movies are “reductive?”

        😉

        • DC Forever

          “Reductive gaseous anomalies” should count for 2 shots!

    • TIG1701

      Wow great news if true!

  • Barak Aslani

    I don’t want a third JJ movie. The sooner we can get back to a TV series and movies which honor the 50+ years of established canon as the TNG and the spin-offs that followed were doing, I as a fan, will be happiest. I don’t want to squint my eyes and try my best to enjoy a rebooted or re-imagined or alternative universe. I want the same respect Star Wars fans get. Rogue One kept to a style and continuity prior films had set, yet Star Wars fans aren’t slammed for being nostalgic and wanting a true continuation of what they love. Us Prime Universe fans emotionally INVESTED in Trek for years, and we have to be brave and admit our disappointment. Do not allow JJ fans to shame you. Stand firm on your truth. The JJ-verse films are reductive and Discovery is a prequel we didn’t want to see. The franchise is being savaged and they are hoping loyal fans will continue to support and fund anything with a Star Trek label on it. Insulting to say the least.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Take another Prozac, dude. Sheesh! LOL

      • clbrown

        Please read your own first line… and apply it to yourself.

        You can disagree with someone… I disagree with the guy you just attempted to savage… without taking such a nasty, petty, brattish tone.

        Well, most of us can, anyway. You have to decide for yourself if acting like an adult is something you’d like to try.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Sorry that I had the audacity to challenge your “movie financial expertise.” I get that this is “payback”. No problemo, dude.

          • clbrown

            Keep on playing the juvenile games. I’m sure it impresses your all the other kids on your particular playground.

            Nevertheless, despite your evident love of “arguing” which has nothing in common with actual discussion, you keep on failing to support your own points, or to provide counters (other than “appeal to authority” and “mockery in lieu of argument”) to the points of others.

            I get it. You love Abrams’ work, and you are used (in your own little circle) to being “the expert” on matters such as this.

            But in real life, there are a lot of people who know things you don’t know. If you want to be treated with even the tiniest little inkling of “respect” you need to (a) behave like and actual adult, and (b) win support for your positions by actually MAKING THOSE POSITIONS… CLEARLY… and then by engaging in an open, honest debate where others have other positions.

            You have done none of the above. You simply want to be accepted as “the expert” without ever so much as having to make a case of your own. You know you can’t, so it’s no surprise you don’t want to… but your perpetual resorting to “appeal to authority” (a single screenwriter, who isn’t saying “this is how things really work” but rather “this is how I wish things worked in the industry I work in, and I wish those in positions of authority in the industry would listen to me!”) and your even more perpetual “attack the messenger with ineffectual attempts at ridicule” in lieu of addressing actual points made… they only demonstrate what you really are.

            You claim, in your very title, to be an “oracle.” Man, what a pompous self-proclaimed title that is! Care to support your own position (second time I’ve asked, by the way) by telling us all what you’ve accomplished which makes YOU an expert?

            I’m not claiming to be an expert in the industry. I’m only repeating what the people who actually hold the purse-strings SAY THAT THEIR OWN POSITION IS.

            I’m sorry if that little bit of reality is “inconvenient” for you, but it remains the case.

            Studios decide which films to make, and which not to make, based upon expected return on investment. Not based upon what “The Science Fiction Oracle” thinks that they OUGHT to make, because he really, REALLY, REEEEEEALLY wants them to.

            And the fact remains, the Star Trek movies, while being pretty decent in the “gross revenue” category, simply haven’t provided an adequate return on investment.

            That’s why the studio is hesitant to make another film at the present… just as they were hesitant to make another film after “Nemesis.” They want to make a healthy profit, and they can make more profit from many smaller films than they can from one “mega-expensive would-be-blockbuster” which fails to perform as well as hoped.

            I’m sorry that this simple, basic lesson in Econ 101 is beyond you. But that’s your problem, no one else’s.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You feel better now! 🙂

            To everyone else here — clbrown, myself and others have been discussing this topic in another area of this board since last night. clbrown knows that I have already replied to him/her on his points here several times today. We don’t need to bring it into this different topic being discussed here, but I guess clbrown wants to expand his/her audience and score some trolling points to boot.

            And notice how he/she constantly personally berates me (in another post, he/she brought in the word “Nazi” and infered that was something I would use in my posts?)

          • clbrown

            We’ve been discussing it in another part of the board? REALLY?

            Provide a link, please.

            (To anyone else reading, he just made that up, out of thin air.)

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            ??? Like, duh, see on this web page for this article in another subtopic where you started this whole discussion last night.

            ????????

          • clbrown

            You don’t actually believe a single comment page somehow constitutes more than one comment page, do you?

            If you somehow think that one comment on one page can somehow “branch” onto the very same page… the very same topic… then your definitions are far removed from those of the rest of the world.

          • Eskay

            OK, now I understand what you’re confused on. You don’t understand the definition of a discussion thread. There can be multiple discussion threads within one article on a webpage, each covering different topics.

            Perhaps you’re an older person who’s used to things like the older Trek BBS, where your old style definition of a discussion topic thread would be correct?

          • clbrown

            Please take a look at my posting history. I’ve got many thousands of posts, in many different locations, on many different topics.

            You are the one “redefining” what a thread is. Of course, I bailed on TrekBBS many years ago, when some of the nitwits there decided to do… well, frankly, just about exactly what you and “Oracle” here have been doing, picking fights about things which make no sense, merely as a form of “chest beating,” in support of some bizarre sense of entitlement over a damned TV show (and movie series).

            It’s entertainment. That’s all it is.

            As for “older person,” well, I was alive and aware when the original series was on the air. I’m also a technical professional, having spent significant amount of time working on real-world, cutting edge technology, so please don’t take a dismissive tone towards me.

            I get that you’re seeing all this for the first time… youth isn’t a BAD thing, by any stretch… but the “it’s all new and we need to educate the older people” concept, while common in EVERY SINGLE GENERATION since the human race came into existence, is simply stupid.

            My “old style definition” is the same definition used throughout every message system on the internet. I’m sorry if you want to redefine terms, but you don’t get to do that.

            A single topic has a single thread… but can have multiple SUB-THREADS inside of it.

            That’s what you’re talking about.

            This language is an artifact of computer programming mentality, where multi-threading allows for multiple programs to run “simultaneously” (not REALLY, but effectively). Each program can be running multiple instruction threads. Each thread is not limited to single chain of instructions. You’re pretending that a single thread (in either sense) must be entirely linear in nature. That’s just not the case.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            brev·i·ty
            noun
            concise and exact use of words in writing or speech.
            synonyms: conciseness, concision, succinctness, economy of language, pithiness, incisiveness, shortness, compactness
            “the report is notable for its brevity”

          • DC Forever

            Well, we’ve seen a few “long winders” from you from to time to time.

          • DC Forever

            Actually you and Oracle are both right. Thread did start out as a computer software definition, but today, there is also the discussion thread definition.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are 100% correct. Don’t let this clown bully you, dude. He’s trying to make yours an my rather innocuous point on what threads are into some big debate deal, because I embarrassed him as not being up-to-date on movie revenue stream calculations.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            THREAD – DEFINITION

            “In online discussions, a series of messages that have been posted as replies to each other. A single forum or conference typically contains many threads covering different subjects. By reading each message in a thread, one after the other, you can see how the discussion has evolved. You can start a new thread by posting a message that is not a reply to an earlier message.”

            Like, DUH!

          • DC Forever

            Actually you and Brown are both right. Thread did start out as a computer software definition, but today, their is also the discussion thread definition.

          • Dan King

            Hey Oracle, is this guy “clbrown” the same person as “Michael?”You said Michael called people fake fans or something and this clown is saying the same thing!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You may be right. Now he’s posting really weird stuff. Seems unhinged.

          • Eskay

            Excuse me, but there is another area of discussion here in this article’s discussion thread where you did in fact start up this topic yesterday; and several of you have been covering this movie returns issue in that area, just like Oracle said.

            Also, it does seem pretty obvious that you are trying to bring your “grievances” fron that discussion into this seperate discussion here that Barak began.

            Perhaps just cool your anger a little bit and finish that discussion back there?

          • clbrown

            Being that I know exactly what I posted, and to whom… and that my only posts here have been in this single thread… I will say, bluntly, that you are lying. Period.

            Disagree? Provide a link to where, in another thread, I “started” something.

            Please.

          • Eskay

            Well now you are taking me too literally. What I meant was that this current bitch-fast between you and Oracle largely started yesterday where you brought up your movie financials theories with Your Worst Nightmare. That’s pretty clear.

            Again, I think you just need to chill out a bit. Having just experienced your wrath by calling me a liar is a bit over-the-top. You might have at least given me the courtesy of explaining myself.

          • clbrown

            You said that I started the topic… which I didn’t. You said I started it in another thread, and then “dragged it” into another thread. I didn’t. Those statements were untrue. And your “REJECTED !!!” comment… pretty much established who and what you are, and what your own attitude is.

            You haven’t experienced my “wrath.” There aren’t many people alive these days who have. It takes a lot to get my “wrath” going, and most of those who did, did so back in the days when I worked for the government (and who definitely deserved it, for reasons far more significant than some silly TV/movie discussion!) You’ve only experienced my chastizing of your ridiculous, “team jersey” behavior here. (Again… “REJECTED !!!”… seriously, you have the audacity to pretend to hold the “moral high ground” after posting something that ridiculous?)

          • DC Forever

            High tech expertise, kills bad guys for the government, worked on secret programs to protect us, has a huge wrath that can be brought to bear on his enemies…OMG, is that you, Tony Stark? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cf9a023fffe85f830e693b9766bd07fc7a9ad85d7157d0fb7fbc8b7fae1c93f9.jpg

          • clbrown

            Nope.

            Attended college via ROTC in the 1980s, got my commission, was assigned to Fort Huachuca AZ to attend my Officer Basic Course at the Military Intelligence Center and School, was subsequently assigned to Fort Ord CA, where I served in the 7th Infantry Division through a string of real-world events, including Panama, the first Gulf War, digging people out of San Fran after the Loma Prietta Earthquake, and finally taking on the Mexican drug gangs in Los Angeles in the aftermath of the whole Rodney King debacle.

            Degree in aerospace engineering, and returned to that post-military-service, and have been involved in a string of major military and non-military projects since then, including the F-22 Raptor, the T-38 retrofit program, the V-22 Osprey, the E-2C Hawkeye, and a string of others you’d be less familiar with. Not to mention civilian aircraft such as the Cessna Citation X. All these are major programs, and I was not in total charge of them, only over one subelement of the design for each… but my work is up there, and you’ve seen it in operation multiple times.

            And as for “wrath,” well, ask any soldier who’s had buddies blown into little pieces in front of him (or her?) to find out what “wrath” is really like.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            All of our disagreements aside — and I am serious about this — THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE !!!

          • Dan King

            Dude stop being baited by these trolls. They are losers not worth the time.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Your are correct of course. But it’s hard to read all of his nonsense and not respond.

      • Barak Aslani

        The Crabby Oracle does exactly what I am talking about. Shame the real Trek fans. There’s a site for you Oracles, and it’s called Trekmovies, all they do there, every day, is pretend what a success the JJ films are. Why don’t you leave the real Trek fans to talk amoung ourselves here and stop posting. Do everyone a favour and leave as you’re not wanted. I know I’m not the first person to call you up on your crabbiness. You’re pure comedy. Angry for the sack of angry. A cartoon. What’s funny is you seem to think our beloved franchise has preserved it’s dignity. I’m not a Star Wars fan, but new Star Wars films treat their own history and the style that was laid out in the original movies with respect and in my eyes, those films have a lot more integrity than the JJ-verse films. I liked Beyond the best because they showed the original cast photo for a split second. Not enough reason to carry it on for a fourth film. We all want Prime Universe. The sane and well-balanced fans that is…

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Your response is exactly what I expected it to be – a personal attack on me because I dared to challenge your emotionally unhinged, proselytizing hate for the Kelvin movies, and your predetermination that Discovery sucks.

          You are another of these “I am a true Star Trek fan and you are not unless you accept my views” petty, small minded Trek haters who post a lot here. You will not browbeat me into backing down — I will not sit back and be dictated to on how I need to think to considered a true fan. Never!

      • Gene’s Vision

        Rejected!

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          WELL DONE!

      • Eskay

        Rejected !!!

        • clbrown

          And there we go with the juvenile, bratty behavior again.

          Not surprising, sadly.

          • Eskay

            I don’t like all what I think you are suggesting here. I have been posting on this site for serval years, and the Trekcore mods can verify. One thing I do know is that I’ve never seen you here before on this site, yet you suddenly show up pushing your weight around?

            So first you call me a liar and now you’re personally attacking me?

            You need Anger Mgmt training.

          • clbrown

            I don’t care if you “like” anything I said. I didn’t start talking to you, you started talking to me, and your behavior was exactly as I’ve described.

            You toss out a “Rejected !!!” comment… and then attempt to claim the “moral high ground” when I tell you you’re behaving in a juvenile, bratty fashion?

            I don’t care if the “mods” can verify. But feel free to ask them to chime in, if you think they’ll side with your approach over my own. I’ve discussed the topic. You’ve been high-fiving with your buddy here while avoiding serious conversation… and you guys BOTH started the “personal” B.S. against me, and I’ve only pointed out how sad your behavior is.

            You are correct… I haven’t spent years posting on this site. I saw a link to an article I found interesting, and came to the site.

            I have a LOT of things I consider to be far, far more important than a mutual-congratulation-society circle-tug… my posting history will show that clearly enough, mostly focusing on politics, security, and defense-industry topics (areas I’m heavily involved in professionally).

            But I grew up on Star Trek, and the original (which I LOVE) led me down the path my life has followed. So, I still have a great deal of appreciation for the original, and hate it when I see what I love about that show being twisted into something unrecognizable.

            So, seeing a post which was of interest, I read the article, and I decided to scan the postings, and posted my own thoughts (based upon knowing people who are in leadership positions in the studios on a personal basis, mind you).

            You don’t want to accept the basic rule of thumb that studio leadership use to decide where to spend their (limited) funds? Fine. I don’t care. Your acceptance or rejection (“Rejected !!!”) makes no difference at all. Reality will continue whether you like it or not.

            But the fact remains, the studio leadership have their own metrics they use to determine the success or failure of their investments, and it’s not merely “it gives us back the money we put into it.” They’d be just as well off to have never funded the production in the first place if that’s all that they get out of it. They want to INCREASE THEIR MONEY.

            And I’m sorry, but licensing for J.J. Trek films have been… nearly non-existent. In large part due to some very bad mismanagement on the part of Bad Robot, who somehow managed to get a controlling interest in anything published in the “Kelvin Timeline” setting… and have approved virtually nothing (much to PPC’s chagrin, I strongly suspect). So to claim that licensing is a money-maker today is, frankly, silly. ONLY theatrical release, and post-release streaming/disk sales, count… and since the latter is hard to quantify, the only tangible measure is theatrical revenue. International revenue is so complicated that it’s also virtually impossible to track. So, again, the only tangible measure is domestic first-run revenue.

            And yes, since almost all films are “international” these days… and the market sizes are proportional… it’s a perfectly fair comparison to stick to the “first run domestic release” to compare the relative profitability of film “A” versus film “B.” So the studios stick with what works, and what is easily tracked.

            Of course, by this measure, “Blade Runner” was a failure. And it actually WAS a failure. It was considered a “cult hit” for many years, not a real studio moneymaker. There’s a reason that it’s taken this many years for a studio to attempt a sequel (which I have grave misgivings about, as well… the original needs no sequel!)

            If the studio doesn’t see a 100% profit above what they put in, at a minimum… they don’t consider it to have been a good investment. This is because, as I’ve pointed out, many small films (which can be made for almost nothing) can easily earn 400-500% of what they cost to make… they’re FAR more profitable.

            And, despite you guys continually denying it… filmmaking is ONLY about profit, from the point of view of the studios.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            My goodness, I though I was a self-centered blow hard on the internet. I ain’t got nothing on you, dude. The level of myopic, self-importance, self congratulation, resume dropping, fake-ass intellectual superiority, supposed importance to our national security….LOL, you’ve got to be fracking kidding me — I am laughing so hard.

            Hey, here’s a thought — LEARN HOW TO SUMMARIZE things a bit, dude. I mean, seriously, I either need to buy the Cliff’s Notes of this and some of your other posts, or wait for Hollywood to make the movie (which, per your instructions, would of course would be financed in your quaint 90’s fashion, and thus lose money…lol).

            Thank goodness though that you have the time with your national security and cutting edge technology work to also be an expert on Hollywood film financing…WHO KNEW?

            Oh, oh, is that your NSA buddy trying to hack into my system right now…H^&*(COJEI_S#@IKKDOID(D(OOFOI*OODL%$@…..HELP!!!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            He is angry, but be careful — he is an extremely important person! Remember Jimmy Hoffa? This dude knows how it went down!

          • clbrown

            Riiiight…

            Ah, the irony.

          • DC Forever

            Barak Aslani’s post is asinine and an insult to the principles of IDIC. Any reasonable person should reject it.

      • DC Forever

        Rejected by me as well.

    • Gene’s Vision

      Have you been incarcerated recently with someone named Michael?

    • DC Forever

      You do not practice the principles of IDIC. There are room for multiple views in Star Trek.

      Maybe you’d be better of just sticking with Star Wars, given you seem to be so admiring of that franchise?

    • Pedro Ferreira

      It is sad.

  • Northstar Deplorable

    I thoroughly enjoyed “Beyond,” and I am hoping to see this cast come together again. Just speaking for myself, I feel like the actors finally started growing into their roles and hitting their stride. A fourth foray would be welcomed.

  • Tom

    If thy do go with the Hemsworth story, I would imagine they would have to reference the events of 09. If they do, it would be cool if Spock Prime gets a mention.

    • FightingMongooses

      Spock Prime has been in all 3 films. Let’s move on.

      • Tom

        Going to be interesting to see how they get Hemsworth into the story .

    • startrekker1701

      They’re just doing it to have his name attached. It’s cheap (well actually, probably expensive).

  • Dan King

    The only way I would watch this is if they set the movie up so the events in the first movie were reversed and the Kelvin universe never existed.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      How about if they made Pedro a Redshirt — would that get you to watch?

    • clbrown

      I’m of the opinion that, if they decide not to do any more “Kelvin-timeline” films (my preference, but that’s just personal opinion), the way to do it is something like this:

      Kirk and crew discover that something really, really bad is happening… the fabric of the universe is fractured. Massive ecological/spacial disasters are happening, everywhere, centering roughly on where the Romulus-killing supernova (a nonsensical idea, as a “supernova,” but you could say that it was a hyper-spacial anomaly which seemed to originate with a supernova?).

      They discover that whatever is happening there is what, in a century or so, will result in the disaster which destroys Romulus, which leads to Nero and “Spock-Prime” traveling back, and time being altered.

      The reason that they discover it is that the Nero incursion introduced 24th/25th century technology to the early-mid-23rd century, and they have sensors which SHOULDN’T have existed until the post-TNG-era.

      This leads to the quandry. They have to prevent the (presumably sentience-made) disaster from ever occurring, knowing that by doing so they’ll be erasing their own timeline in the bargain.

      Kirk and crew go to the source of the problem, engage it… and eventually, have to sacrifice themselves in order to prevent the disaster from happening. They succeed… and they all die.

      Trek has done this before, with “Yesterday’s Enterprise.” And the result would be something slightly similar.

      As the Enterprise is destroyed, the crew dies, and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, the last survivors, look on, the source of the disruption which brought their whole timeline into existence is destroyed… and they “wink out.”

      Only to “wink back in” moments later (from the viewer’s standpoint) on the bridge of the USS Enterprise (TOS version, but done in a “modern and high definition” form… so that, if you looked at both bridges out-of-focus, they’d seem to be identical, but with the newly seen bridge being of far more advanced “build quality”). TOS-type costumes (this could simply be re-use of the ST’09/Darkness costumes, but with different badges and sleeve braid). And a gorgeous, but faithful to the original, version of the TOS-era Enterprise (again, if you saw this and the TOS 11′ model out-of-focus, they’d seem identical, but this is of far more detailed build quality).

      We’d be treated to a brief vignet on the bridge, talking about the Enterprise having detected some strange sensor readings near Hobus, which disappeared almost immediately, and some temporal distortion of seemingly trivial nature. Basically, we’d be told “everything is back to how it was before” (except for the new actors playing the roles).

      Then…

      We’d leap ahead to the end of the 24th century… where Ambassador Spock’s protege, a young Romulan officer named Nero, becomes the first Romulan to be accepted into Starfleet Academy, as part of a cultural exchange program. Romulus is safe, the “prime” timeline is restored (perhaps with one or two minor “tweaks”) and the “JJTrek” saga is brought full-circle… with our nuCharacters having given their existence to save ALL existence, the most heroic possible way any character can go.

      All the “JJTrek” stories remain entirely relevant… only as part of a “loops” wherein some terrible threat was averted.

      The “Hobus supernova” was such a “bad science” concept… it really needs to be addressed somehow. How could a supernova wipe out a SEPARATE STAR SYSTEM? It has to be something more than a mere “supernova.” It strikes me as something more akin to what we saw in “Enterprise” with the “Sphere builders.” In fact, I’d make the “sphere builders” into the source of the eventual “Hobus supernova” event.

      The “JJTrek” universe did exist… as part of a closed time-loop, where alternative version of our beloved characters managed to defeat a universe-threatening enemy.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      They should change Discovery to taking place in the Kelvin timeline as it suits that place better.

  • ¡ zer0 !

    Beyond looked nice but it was way too dark. When Kirk and Chekov go back to the saucer – you can barely see anything. When Bones & Spock are in the drone ship and fight the alien inside – it was literally incomprehensible.

    I hope Dan Mindel comes back for the next one.

    • FightingMongooses

      Personally I think Beyond was the best looking of the Kelvin films. The bridge was gorgeous.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e573ebf898eb6c2e0618399360ebabc917b3fb45c0ba4b831713aac6305f147c.png

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Agreed!

      • Simon

        No. If you watch it on a 4K UHD it’s the least detailed and graded wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too dark. Hard to see anything, even in HDR. From the first scene with the critters until they leave to rescue Yorktown.

      • TIG1701

        For the 5 mins we got to see it anyway. 😉

        • FightingMongooses

          I wonder if we’ll get a new bridge for 1701-A?

  • Dan King

    Clbrown is delusional

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      …and a legend in his own mind to boot.

    • clbrown

      Nope. But I see that this is merely another childrens’ clubhouse, full of people who think they “rule” in this clubhouse.

      I said something true… that the JJTrek films weren’t very profitable (all the studios care about) and that the last film’s poor performance is due to the film itself, not due to marketing mismanagement.

      Sorry you guys are in denial about that.

      And sorry you have such sad lives that you feel the need to “defend your turf” this way.

      I guess we have yet another example of Bill Shatner’s “get a life” sketch, in the clique on this board.

      Enjoy your playground, children.

      • DC Forever

        You have just as much right as anyone to post here.

        IDIC people!!!!

  • Several comments below which primarily served to insult other users have been deleted.

    Talk about Trek and not each other – we’ll continue to remove comments that serve no purpose except to attack others going forward due to the past several weeks of arguments following our articles.

    • Dan King

      Ever wonder why the stuff you write pop arguments?

  • Dan King

    Rejected!

  • Dan King

    He will be waiting for a VERY long time.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Wow, before I have even posted here the whole thread has blown up. I hope the mods are sorting out those bans they warned those about. Anyway I just want to say I actually enjoyed Beyond and hope they can make a fourth movie like Beyond. I hope we don’t have to wait too too long for it.

  • GIBBS v2

    Oooooh to “Go Back” at first glance I thought I say “Pay Check”.

  • TIG1701

    Wow I guess I missed the party! It’s been almost 1 year to the day since Beyond arrived DOA in theaters and not so much a peep from Paramount since. JJ verse seems dead in the water. Hope so, because it sucked!!!!!!!!!

    Hopefully Discovery will give us real Star Trek again but the guy who worked on the JJ movies is working on this so….

    But I remain hopeful. I’m an optimist. 🙂