Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Star Trek 14

Recommended Posts

Links to our threads on the original TV series (1966-1969), the original movie series (1979-2002), Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), Star Trek: Enterprise (2001-2005), Star Trek (2009), Star Trek into Darkness (2013) and Star Trek Beyond (2016).

 

These sequels have taken SO LONG to get made (the original films came out at intervals of 2 to 2.5 years, but there was a 4-year gap between the two JJ Abrams films and there will be a 3-year gap between Into Darkness and the next film), it has affected the contract negotiations:

 

- - -

 

'Star Trek 3' Stars Score Big Raises as Kirk and Spock Sign for Fourth Movie (Exclusive)

The third installment of the rebooted Star Trek franchise boldly heads into production this week in Vancouver, and its cast is getting a big pay raise. At the same time, the studio behind Star Trek Beyond quietly has locked up two key players for a potential fourth installment.

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that Paramount and producer-financier Skydance Entertainment recently completed last-minute re-negotiations with the Star Trek stars, a move that has added as much as $10 million-$15 million to the budget. The project’s slow development process may have been partly to blame, as well as the rising star power of the actors, especially Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana.

When the original cast — Pine, Saldana, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin and John Cho — signed on for the movie that re-launched the franchise in 2009, they did so with options for two sequels. Despite the fact that studios often will give stars big new deals in case of success, no re-negotiations took place for 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness. Instead, the Trek cast is said to have received only the nominal raises built into their original contracts. According to sources, Paramount argued that the J.J. Abrams-directed 2009 movie, while well-received, was not a huge blockbuster, grossing $385.7 million (a relative pittance compared to Paramount’s billion-dollar Transformers series or even its Mission: Impossible movies).

After Into Darkness grossed $467 million, Paramount was ready to jump back in for a third movie. But Star Trek 3 ran into delays in the development process: Roberto Orci spent the better part of 2014 writing the script (he also was slated to direct) only to have execs then decide to scrap it and part ways with the filmmaker. In January, Pegg and Dark Blue co-creator Doug Jung were brought in to write a new script. With Fast & Furious franchise director Justin Lin — seen as a get —on board to direct, things were looking like they were back on track. 

That's when the actors' deals became an issue.

Paramount was again only looking to give nominal raises based on the original contracts, but some of the stars and their representatives argued that seven years had passed since the deals were struck back in 2007. Under California law, a personal services contract cannot bind someone for more than seven years. That meant the old deals arguably were invalid as of 2014. . . .

Hollywood Reporter, June 26

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sites are reporting now that this film is slated for 2019... but I see that I already mentioned this in my post above, back in June. At any rate: Sigh. These movies used to come out at 2-2.5  year intervals. Now 3-4 years is the norm. (To modify that old joke, the food here is awful, and in such infrequent portions...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A press release I got three days ago confirmed what JJ Abrams said last week about Chris Hemsworth returning to the franchise as Kirk's father. Yes, even though Kirk's father died in the opening scene in the 2009 film (which is widely regarded as the best scene in all of the reboot films; it was all downhill from there).

The official synopsis: "In the next installment of the epic space adventure, Chris Pine’s Captain Kirk will cross paths with a man he never had a chance to meet, but whose legacy has haunted him since the day he was born: his father."

As you can imagine, I have Thoughts about this. I posted some of them to Facebook when Abrams first made his comments. I've had a few more since then. I might get around to blogging this... but first I have to see Star Trek Beyond tonight, and then deal with my response to *that* for the next day or two or three (and all while my family and I are at church camp!).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   

Now I'm thinking about future entries in the movie franchise. I really don't think this crew or this universe have the longevity of the Prime universe, for a lot of reasons--not least of which is the fact that the pressure of turning out summer tentpoles hasn't been kind to the movies already. So bringing back Kirk's father to resolve the paternal issues he's had for the whole series could be a good move.

Now, as to the mechanics--well, as you suggest, there's always time travel. And, honestly, that's probably the direction they'll go. But how cool would it be if they did something like Bradbury's "The Third Expedition" in The Martian Chronicles (which I read, for the first time, just recently) and have the crew encounter a planet where the dead are alive again, or at least seem to be? That strikes me as a properly Trek idea, and one that could be used in a manner analogous to Sybok's mind powers in The Final Frontier (except--hopefully--better).

There's my fan fiction. In real life? Probably going to be time travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phlox   

Interesting, saw that report on Trekmovie.com….was surprised that Tarantino prefers Star Trek to Star Wars. A new Trek movie from Abrams teamed with the director known for the ”estheticization of violence” – ? doesn’t exactly lift my spirits (!). He said an episode like TNG “Yesterday’s Enterprise” could easily be adapted into a feature film –the one where the ship enters a time rift and the crew find themselves in a long doomed battle with the Klingons, that has spread to the entire quadrant.  Seems like Trek scripts keep getting more firmly entrenched in the genre of action flicks.

What I’d like to see is a film that “boldly goes” into the period after the arrival of the Vulcans in 2063 and before the United Federation of Planets in 2161…the never-explored transition beyond tribal conflict, that somehow ends war, crime, disease, poverty, hunger, etc. 

Edited by phlox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phlox wrote:
: . . . was surprised that Tarantino prefers Star Trek to Star Wars.

Really? I believe Kill Bill started with a quote from The Wrath of Khan. I can't recall Tarantino quoting Star Wars movies ever.

: He said an episode like TNG “Yesterday’s Enterprise” could easily be adapted into a feature film –the one where the ship enters a time rift and the crew find themselves in a long doomed battle with the Klingons, that has spread to the entire quadrant. 

Side note: That TNG episode kind of has things backwards, in retrospect. The point is not that the TNG universe is the "right" universe and the other universe is the "wrong" one. What actually seems to have happened is that the Enterprise-C vanished, life got very dark for the Federation, the Enterprise-C re-appeared, and then the Enterprise-C went back in time and inadvertently started a brand-new timeline. So the TNG universe (which is also the DS9 universe and the VOY universe) is actually *not the original timeline*. It is only the fact that the series began in this second timeline that led the producers and scriptwriters to assume that the TNG timeline was the "right" one to be in.

Just think how interesting it could have been if the episode had shown the crew of the Enterprise-D discovering that it was existing on a second timeline that had wiped out an earlier one, the same way the people in the JJ Abrams films learn that *they* are living on a rebooted timeline. Ah well. The crew of the Enterprise-D got to have a similar experience in 'Parallels', at least.

: Seems like Trek scripts keep getting more firmly entrenched in the genre of action flicks.

Sad but true. Though you never know: in Tarantino's hands, maybe it would turn into another Hateful Eight. :)

: What I’d like to see is a film that “boldly goes” into the period after the arrival of the Vulcans in 2063 and before the United Federation of Planets in 2161…the never-explored transition beyond tribal conflict, that somehow ends war, crime, disease, poverty, hunger, etc. 

That's way too much for a single film. That's the sort of thing that calls for a series. And frankly, I'm kind of tired of prequels right now. Enterprise, the JJ Abrams films, and now Discovery are all prequels to the original series. I'd like to see stories that take place *after* TNG (by which I guess I mean *after* Star Trek: Nemesis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phlox   

Well, you clearly remembered more about that TNG episode than I did!  Apparently there is a whole book about it, by Eric Stillwell, one of the script writers. 

The other episode Tarantino mentioned  was from TOS-- “City on the edge of forever” -- to expand into a movie. So he’s definitely into the time travel theme.  He also said the first Star Trek reboot was the best film of 2009.

Edited by phlox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×