It’s Time To Stop Trying To Make ‘Star Trek 4’ Happen

ParamountPARA
first announced that they were making a fourth installment of the rebooted Star Trek in July of 2016, on the Monday before Star Trek Beyond’s theatrical debut. I wrote at the time that it was a bluff, a theoretical announcement intended to stoke excitement about the Justin Lin-directed Star Trek threequel and create the preemptive presumption of success. The film performed poorly despite good reviews, earning $158 million domestically and $338 million worldwide on a $180 million budget. That was 6.5 years ago, and now we have word that Paramount has officially removed the fourth film from the release schedule. I now expect Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom to move from December 25 to December 22 or, if they are feeling lucky, December 15 (Wonka needs some distance from Dune part Two anyway). We are no closer to Star Trek 4 than in the summer of 2016. At this point, it’s time to admit defeat.

At this point, it’s probably not going to happen, at least not in terms of Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg and John Cho suiting up for another interstellar adventure. The project stalled in 2018 after Pine and Chris Hemsworth (intending to reprise as Kirk’s late father) refused to take pay cuts. Over the next few years, various versions helmed by Noah Hawley, Quentin Tarantino (a version that likely never made it beyond brainstorming over food and drink) and S.J. Clarkson before WandaVision’s Matt Shakman entered development. The fourth film was announced during a big Paramount+ event before the cast was even informed, meaning no deals were in place, and everyone was likely to demand top-dollar salaries for a film that Paramount very much wanted to make. And now, with Shankman ditching to helm Fantastic Four for Marvel/Disney, the alleged/theoretical Star Trek 4 is no longer slated for December 22, 2023.

It joins Star Wars: Rogue Squadron as the great Christmas 2023 tentpoles that weren’t. James Wan’s Aquaman sequel is the last man standing, which is ironic considering the constant ‘DC in disarray’ headlines. As I’ve written countless times since Star Trek Beyond opened with ‘just’ $58 million domestic (compared to $79 million for Star Trek and $83 million for Star Trek Into Darkness), not every franchise is fated to pull MCU/Fast and Furious/Mission: Impossible-level grosses. Star Trek was kneecapped by a four-year delay between Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, which allowed the MCU to become the dominant sci-fi fantasy franchise and The Fast and the Furious to become the definitive ‘diverse surrogate family saves the day’ franchise. And that was before Guardians of the Galaxy in 2014 and (even worse) the return of Star Wars in 2015. Had Star Trek 2 opened in June of 2012, we might be having a very different conversation.

Star Trek 2 would have been the event movie of June 2012, between The Avengers in May and The Dark Knight Rises in July. It would have been the breakout sequel of the summer, building off goodwill from Star Trek ($256 million domestic but $385 million worldwide) in a less crowded summer. It would have fended off The Amazing Spider-Man and possibly stopped the ‘arbitrary reboot for the sake of arbitrary reboots’ trend before it could even begin. By the summer of 2013, Star Trek Into Darkness (which I like more than you) was an also-ran tentpole ($226 million domestic and $467 million worldwide on a $190 million budget) alongside Iron Man 3, Fast & Furious 6 and Man of Steel. By 2016, Star Trek Beyond was just that week’s scheduled franchise flick in a summer filled with ‘huge in their day’ IP (X-Men: Apocalypse, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Jason Bourne, Ghostbusters and Independence Day: Resurgence).

Star Trek Beyond was rendered un-special in 2016 by a surplus of like-minded franchise-friendly action/fantasy flicks. The Force Awakens, Guardians of the Galaxy and Furious 7 negated every element that made a mega-budget, blockbuster-minded Star Trek movie unique in 2009. I cannot imagine an explicit Star Trek 4 will be more special in 2024 or 2025 after years of like-minded franchises and high-quality (and high production value) Star Trek shows (Discovery, Strange New Worlds, etc.) filling up the Paramount+ line-up. Rebooting, either with new characters (now it’s just a generic movie with a known IP) or new actors as the original crew (or the Next Generation crew) is doing what was cool and different in 2009 but is now par for the course. There aren’t many ways to make Star Trek at least as unique as it was in the summer of 2009, back when films of that scale were still events.

I’ve long argued that a $90-$120 million Star Trek movie, one with the same cast but with less of a need to deliver high-end spectacle (which franchise fans never cared for anyway), would be an intelligent play, as but I’m not sure even that ship hasn’t already sailed. The allure of Star Trek pulling a Dark Knight, whereby a $371 million-grossing Batman Begins led to a $1 billion-plus sequel, indeed seemed reasonable in the summer of 2009. But it didn’t happen in 2013 and didn’t happen in 2016. Maybe audiences were just curious about the new, action-packed, IMAX-friendly, sexy-cool Star Trek just once, and that their initial interest in the well-reviewed and well-received sci-fi actioner didn’t mean they would show up every time like clockwork. Star Trek was never going to be the next Transformers. We’ll see if Paramount can ever at least budget it to where it need only be the next Sonic the Hedgehog.