FANDOM


(Alternate Reality films: Updated BO profits for Beyond)
m (Gross vs net profitability: typo)
 
(194 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{realworld}}
+
{{real world}}
  +
[[File:The Motion Picture artwork.jpg|right|180px]]
  +
This article concerns itself with the general production and performances of the official ''[[Star Trek]]'' theatrical feature films as produced and distributed by [[Paramount Pictures]], having been the full rights title holder from 1979 ({{film|1}}) through 2002 ({{film|10}}), and as licensee from 2009 ({{film|11}}) through 2016 ({{film|13}}), thereby constituting what is currently known as the "''Star Trek'' film [[franchise]]".
  +
  +
Within that franchise a further distinction is often made between the two [[prime universe]] film franchises, to wit,
  +
*The {{s|TOS}} or "''Original Crew''" film franchise ({{film|1}} – {{film|6}})
  +
*The {{s|TNG}} or (less commonly) "''Next Gen (TNG) Crew''" film franchise ({{film|7}} – {{film|10}})
  +
and the third, [[alternate reality]] or "''[[USS Kelvin|Kelvin]]-timeline''", film franchise,
  +
* {{film|11}} – {{film|13}}
  +
 
==Films==
 
==Films==
  +
As a franchise the ''Star Trek'' films were almost conceived as an afterthought in the wake of the stupefying success of the very first, 1977 ''[[Star Wars]]'' installment. The result of that, {{film|1}}, did nowhere come close to living up to the (too) high expectations of studio executives, who subsequently decided to kill off the fledgling ''Star Trek'' film franchise there and then. The highest conglomerate executive though, [[Gulf+Western]] owner and CEO [[Charlie Bluhdorn]], saw it differently and personally ordered his Paramount subordinates to pursue the franchise further. Having actually already ordained the original film production in the first place, it was therefore Bluhdorn in person who in effect not only conceived the ''Star Trek'' film franchise, but also saved it as a franchise as well (for further particulars, see: ''[[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Production history|main article]]'').
  +
 
=== ''The Original Series'' films ===
 
=== ''The Original Series'' films ===
Films which feature the cast of ''[[Star Trek: The Original Series]]''.
+
Films which feature the cast of {{s|TOS}}.
 
{|class="grey" width="100%"
 
{|class="grey" width="100%"
 
!Title
 
!Title
Line 12: Line 14:
 
!Domestic Gross
 
!Domestic Gross
 
!Foreign Gross
 
!Foreign Gross
!Worldwide Gross<ref>These figures include worldwide box-office takes only. Every other form of revenue, such as for merchandise, home media format sales, rentals, television rights and the like, are excluded from the figures. Revenue and cost figures as submitted by the studio to the movie website {{w|IMDb}}</ref>
+
!Worldwide Gross<ref>These figures include worldwide box-office takes only. Every other form of revenue, such as for merchandise, home media format sales, rentals, television rights and the like, are excluded from the figures. Revenue and cost figures as submitted by the studio to the film website {{w|IMDb}}</ref>
 
!Budget (est)
 
!Budget (est)
 
!Profitability Gross<ref>Percentages above 100% indicate profit, below 100%, loss and at 100% means the production exactly recouped its production costs.</ref>
 
!Profitability Gross<ref>Percentages above 100% indicate profit, below 100%, loss and at 100% means the production exactly recouped its production costs.</ref>
Line 19: Line 21:
 
|1
 
|1
 
|1
 
|1
|7410.2 - 7414.1
+
|7410.2 &ndash; 7414.1
 
|{{dateserial|1979|12|07}}
 
|{{dateserial|1979|12|07}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_the_motion_picture/ 47%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_the_motion_picture|42%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek.htm $82,258,456]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek.htm|$82,258,456}}
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/business $56,741,544]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/business|$56,741,544}}
 
|$139,000,000
 
|$139,000,000
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $35,000,000]<ref>In the 1980s and 1990s a figure of approximately $45 million dollar was widely propagated in numerous publications, including those licensed by Paramount Pictures. For a treatment on the apparent discrepancy, please see: [[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Costs and revenues|''The Motion Picture'': Costs and revenues]].</ref>
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$35,000,000}}<ref>In the 1980s and 1990s a figure of approximately $45 million dollar was widely propagated in numerous publications, including those licensed by Paramount Pictures. For a treatment on the apparent discrepancy, please see: [[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Costs and revenues|''The Motion Picture'': Costs and revenues]].</ref>
 
|397%
 
|397%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 31: Line 33:
 
|2
 
|2
 
|2
 
|2
|8130.3 - 8141.6
+
|8130.3 &ndash; 8141.6
 
|{{dateserial|1982|06|04}}
 
|{{dateserial|1982|06|04}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_ii_the_wrath_of_khan/ 88%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_ii_the_wrath_of_khan|87%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2.htm $78,912,963]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek2.htm|$78,912,963}}
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/business $18,087,037]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/business|$18,087,037}}
 
|$97,000,000
 
|$97,000,000
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $11,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$11,000,000}}
|882%<ref>The profitability of ''Wrath of Khan'' is flattered, as that production made use of a substantial amount of special and visual effects assets, such as studio models, props, sets and even complete visual effects sequences produced for the previous movie, and which do not show up in its production costs. This also holds true, though to a lesser degree, for the subsequent four movies.</ref>
+
|882%<ref>The profitability of ''Wrath of Khan'' is flattered, as that production made use of a substantial amount of special and visual effects assets, such as studio models, props, sets and even complete visual effects sequences produced for the previous film, and which do not show up in its production costs. This also holds true, though to a lesser degree, for the subsequent four films.</ref>
 
|-
 
|-
 
|{{film|3}}
 
|{{film|3}}
Line 45: Line 47:
 
|8210.3
 
|8210.3
 
|{{dateserial|1984|06|01}}
 
|{{dateserial|1984|06|01}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_iii_the_search_for_spock/ 78%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_iii_the_search_for_spock|80%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek3.htm $76,471,046]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek3.htm|$76,471,046}}
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088170/business $10,528,954]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0088170/business|$10,528,954}}
 
|$87,000,000
 
|$87,000,000
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088170/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $17,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0088170/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$17,000,000}}
 
|512%
 
|512%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 57: Line 59:
 
|8390.0
 
|8390.0
 
|{{dateserial|1986|11|26}}
 
|{{dateserial|1986|11|26}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_iv_the_voyage_home/ 85%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_iv_the_voyage_home|85%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek4.htm $109,713,132]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek4.htm|$109,713,132}}
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/business $23,286,868]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/business|$23,286,868}}
 
|$133,000,000
 
|$133,000,000
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $25,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$25,000,000}}
 
|532%
 
|532%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 69: Line 71:
 
|8454.1
 
|8454.1
 
|{{dateserial|1989|06|09}}
 
|{{dateserial|1989|06|09}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_v_the_final_frontier/ 21%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_v_the_final_frontier|22%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek5.htm $52,210,049]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek5.htm|$52,210,049}}
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098382/business $17,999,951]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0098382/business|$17,999,951}}
 
|$70,210,000
 
|$70,210,000
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098382/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $27,800,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0098382/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$27,800,000}}
 
|253%
 
|253%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 79: Line 81:
 
|6
 
|6
 
|6
 
|6
|9521.6 - 9529.1.
+
|9521.6 &ndash; 9529.1.
 
|{{dateserial|1991|12|06}}
 
|{{dateserial|1991|12|06}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_vi_the_undiscovered_country/ 83%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_vi_the_undiscovered_country|81%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek6.htm $74,888,996]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek6.htm|$74,888,996}}
 
|$22,000,000
 
|$22,000,000
 
|$96,888,996
 
|$96,888,996
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $30,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$30,000,000}}
 
|323%
 
|323%
 
|-
 
|-
 
|colspan="5"|TOS Totals
 
|colspan="5"|TOS Totals
|'''67% (avg)'''
+
|'''66% (avg)'''
 
|'''$474,454,642'''
 
|'''$474,454,642'''
 
|'''$148,644,354'''
 
|'''$148,644,354'''
Line 98: Line 100:
   
 
=== ''The Next Generation'' films ===
 
=== ''The Next Generation'' films ===
Films which feature the cast of ''[[Star Trek: The Next Generation]]''. Unlike the preceding [[TOS]] films, these did not carry sequel numbers ("Star Trek VII," "Star Trek VIII," "Star Trek IX" or "Star Trek X") except in pre-production. However, the numbers do appear on newer disc covers.
+
Films which feature the cast of {{s|TNG}}. Unlike the preceding [[TOS]] films, these did not carry sequel numbers ("Star Trek VII", "Star Trek VIII", "Star Trek IX" or "Star Trek X") except in pre-production. However, the numbers do appear on newer disc covers.
 
{|class="grey" width="100%"
 
{|class="grey" width="100%"
 
!Title
 
!Title
Line 115: Line 117:
 
|7
 
|7
 
|1
 
|1
|48632.4 - 48650.1
+
|48632.4 &ndash; 48650.1
 
|{{dateserial|1994|11|18}}
 
|{{dateserial|1994|11|18}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_generations/ 48%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_generations|47%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek7.htm $75,671,125]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek7.htm|$75,671,125}}
 
|$42,400,000
 
|$42,400,000
 
|$118,071,125
 
|$118,071,125
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111280/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $35,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0111280/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$35,000,000}}
|337%<ref>Produced back-to-back with its television progenitor and therefore with much of its setup already in place, the profitability of ''Generations'' is, like that of ''Wrath of Khan'', also somewhat flattered, as that production too made use of a substantial amount of special and visual effects assets, such as studio models, costumes, props, and sets produced for the television properties, which do not show up in the budget.</ref>
+
|337%<ref>Produced back-to-back with its television progenitor and therefore with much of its setup already in place, the profitability of ''Generations'' is, like that of ''The Wrath of Khan'', also somewhat flattered, as that production too made use of a substantial amount of special and visual effects assets, such as studio models, costumes, props, and sets produced for the television properties, which do not show up in the budget.</ref>
 
|-
 
|-
 
|{{film|8}}
 
|{{film|8}}
Line 129: Line 131:
 
|50893.5
 
|50893.5
 
|{{dateserial|1996|11|22}}
 
|{{dateserial|1996|11|22}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_first_contact/ 93%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_first_contact|93%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek8.htm $92,027,888]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek8.htm|$92,027,888}}
 
|$54,000,000
 
|$54,000,000
 
|$146,027,888
 
|$146,027,888
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117731/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $45,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0117731/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$45,000,000}}
 
|324%
 
|324%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 141: Line 143:
 
|52200 (approx)
 
|52200 (approx)
 
|{{dateserial|1998|12|11}}
 
|{{dateserial|1998|12|11}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_insurrection/ 55%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_insurrection|54%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek9.htm $70,187,658]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek9.htm|$70,187,658}}
 
|$42,400,000
 
|$42,400,000
 
|$112,587,658
 
|$112,587,658
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120844/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $58,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0120844/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$58,000,000}}
 
|194%
 
|194%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 153: Line 155:
 
|56844.9
 
|56844.9
 
|{{dateserial|2002|12|13}}
 
|{{dateserial|2002|12|13}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_nemesis/ 37%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_nemesis|37%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek10.htm $43,254,409]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek10.htm|$43,254,409}}
 
|$24,058,417
 
|$24,058,417
 
|$67,312,826
 
|$67,312,826
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253754/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $60,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0253754/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$60,000,000}}
 
|112%
 
|112%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 169: Line 171:
 
|}
 
|}
   
=== ''Alternate Reality'' films ===
+
=== Alternate reality films ===
 
Films which feature a different version of the TOS characters portrayed by a new cast, and set in an [[alternate reality]] from earlier films and series.
 
Films which feature a different version of the TOS characters portrayed by a new cast, and set in an [[alternate reality]] from earlier films and series.
 
{| class="grey" width="100%"
 
{| class="grey" width="100%"
Line 187: Line 189:
 
|11
 
|11
 
|1
 
|1
|2233.04 - 2258.42
+
|2233.04 &ndash; 2258.42
 
|{{dateserial|2009|05|08}}
 
|{{dateserial|2009|05|08}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/ 95%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11|94%}}
 
|{{Trek box office}}
 
|{{Trek box office}}
 
|{{Trek box office|int=yes}}
 
|{{Trek box office|int=yes}}
 
|{{Trek box office|world=yes}}
 
|{{Trek box office|world=yes}}
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $150,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$150,000,000}}
|276%
+
|257%
 
|-
 
|-
 
|{{film|12}}
 
|{{film|12}}
 
|12
 
|12
 
|2
 
|2
|2259.55
+
|2259.55 &ndash; 2260.133
 
|{{dateserial|2013|05|16}}
 
|{{dateserial|2013|05|16}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/ 86%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness|84%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm $228,778,661]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek12.htm|$228,778,661}}
 
|$238,602,923
 
|$238,602,923
 
|$467,381,584
 
|$467,381,584
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $190,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$190,000,000}}
 
|246%
 
|246%
 
|-
 
|-
Line 211: Line 213:
 
|13
 
|13
 
|3
 
|3
|2263.02 - 2263.04
+
|2263.02 &ndash; 2263.04
 
|{{dateserial|2016|07|22}}
 
|{{dateserial|2016|07|22}}
|[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_beyond/ 83%]
+
|{{el|www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_beyond|86%}}
|[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm $140,549,306]
+
|{{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}startrek2016.htm|$158,848,340}}
|$71,970,277
+
|$184,623,476
|$212,519,583
+
|$343,471,816
|[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2660888/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus $185,000,000]
+
|{{el|www.imdb.com/title/tt2660888/business?ref_{{=}}tt_dt_bus|$185,000,000}}
|N/A
+
|185%
 
|-
 
|-
 
<!--|{{film|14}}
 
<!--|{{film|14}}
Line 234: Line 236:
 
| colspan="5" |AR Totals
 
| colspan="5" |AR Totals
 
|'''88% (avg)'''
 
|'''88% (avg)'''
|'''$627,057,986'''
+
|'''$645,357,020'''
|'''$438,523,627'''
+
|'''$551,176,826'''
|'''$1,065,581,613'''
+
|'''$1,196,533,846'''
 
|'''$525,000,000'''
 
|'''$525,000,000'''
|'''259% (avg)'''
+
|'''227% (avg)'''
 
|}
 
|}
 
:''Footnotes'':
 
:''Footnotes'':
<small><references /></small>
+
{{small|<references />}}
  +
  +
=== Unrealized ''Star Trek'' films ===
  +
Besides the above referenced films which had eventually seen a theatrical release, Paramount has over the decades embarked on the development of several other ''Star Trek'' film projects as well, they however, ultimately abandoned in various stages of development for a variety of reasons. Costs incurred for these unrealized projects were usually charged against the subsequent film project that was realized. (''see also: [[#Hollywood accounting|below]]'')
  +
:For further particulars on these abandoned film projects, see: ''[[Undeveloped Star Trek projects]]''.
   
 
==Summary==
 
==Summary==
{{film|1}} (1979) reunites the [[TOS]] cast aboard the original {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701}}, refurbished after its five-year mission as documented in the television series. The story was originally conceived as the pilot episode of the aborted ''[[Star Trek: Phase II]]'' series, in which the now-[[Admiral]] [[James T. Kirk|Kirk]] and crew must engage with a powerful, threatening force that is heading directly towards [[Earth]].
+
{{spoiler-section|{{s|PIC}}}}
  +
{{film|1}} (1979) reunites the {{s|TOS}} cast aboard the original {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701}}, refurbished after its five-year mission as documented in the television series. The story was originally conceived as the pilot episode of the aborted ''[[Star Trek: Phase II]]'' series, in which the now-[[Admiral]] [[James T. Kirk|Kirk]] and crew must engage with a powerful, threatening force that is heading directly towards [[Earth]].
   
{{film|2}} (1982), {{film|3}} (1984), and {{film|4}} (1986) together form a loose trilogy, beginning with the reintroduction of an old enemy from a popular TOS episode ({{e|Space Seed}}) who resumes his conflict with Kirk in epic fashion, leading to the creation of the planet {{dis|Genesis|planet}}, the death of [[Spock]] and his subsequent "burial" on Genesis, the destruction of the ''Enterprise'' during Kirk's efforts to reunite Spock's body with his ''[[katra]]'', and ultimately a time-travel adventure to [[1986]] aboard a captured [[Klingon]] vessel (''[[HMS Bounty|Bounty]]'') in order to save [[Earth]] from destruction.
+
{{film|2}} (1982), {{film|3}} (1984), and {{film|4}} (1986), together form a loose trilogy beginning with the reintroduction of [[Khan Noonien Singh|an old enemy]] from a popular TOS episode ({{e|Space Seed}}) who resumes his conflict with Kirk in epic fashion, leading to the creation of the planet {{dis|Genesis|planet}}, the death of [[Spock]] and his subsequent "burial" on Genesis, the destruction of the ''Enterprise'' during Kirk's efforts to reunite Spock's regenerated body with his ''[[katra]]'', and ultimately a time-travel adventure to [[1986]] aboard a captured [[Klingon]] vessel ({{HMS|Bounty}}) in order to save [[Earth]] from destruction.
   
 
{{film|5}} (1989) moves Kirk, demoted back to captain as a result of defying [[Starfleet]] orders in {{film|3}}, and crew onto the new {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-A|-A}}, which is hijacked by a renegade [[Vulcan]] ([[Sybok]]) who pilots it to the center of [[Milky Way Galaxy|the galaxy]] in an attempt to find the source of creation.
 
{{film|5}} (1989) moves Kirk, demoted back to captain as a result of defying [[Starfleet]] orders in {{film|3}}, and crew onto the new {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-A|-A}}, which is hijacked by a renegade [[Vulcan]] ([[Sybok]]) who pilots it to the center of [[Milky Way Galaxy|the galaxy]] in an attempt to find the source of creation.
   
{{film|6}} (1991) sees Kirk and crew attempting to prevent derailment of the [[Federation]]/Klingon peace talks by conspirators from both sides. As well as bringing the TOS cast to its retirement, the film also ties up various threads first established in the series (most notably, the conflict between the Federation and the Klingons) and paves the way for the story lines of [[TNG]], set some eighty years later. Produced during the fall of the communist Soviet Union, the film's plot may be regarded as a metaphor for those events and the effect they had on international relations at that time.
+
{{film|6}} (1991) sees Kirk and crew attempting to prevent derailment of the [[Federation]]/Klingon peace talks by conspirators from both sides. As well as bringing the TOS cast to its retirement, the film also ties up various threads first established in the series (most notably, the conflict between the Federation and the Klingons) and paves the way for the storylines of {{s|TNG}}, set seventy years later. Produced during the fall of the communist Soviet Union, the film's plot may be regarded as a metaphor for those events and the effect they had on international relations at that time.
   
{{film|7}} (1994) brings the cast of TNG to the big screen, set less than a year after the end of the series ({{e|All Good Things...}}) and filmed straight after the completion of its last episodes. [[Jean-Luc Picard|Picard]] and the crew of the {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-D|-D}} must try to stop a brilliant [[scientist]] ([[Tolian Soran]]) from committing an act of genocide in order to enter the [[Nexus]], a mysterious hedonistic realm in which time has no meaning. Appearances by three of the TOS cast (Kirk, [[Montgomery Scott|Scotty]], and [[Pavel Chekov|Chekov]]) and the heroic death of Kirk who joins Picard by means of the Nexus, served to "pass the torch" from the old generation to the next; the appearance of recurring enemies [[Lursa]] and [[B'Etor]] and the revelation of their fate provides a key link with the TNG series. The film also includes the destruction of the ''Enterprise''-D.
+
{{film|7}} (1994) brings the cast of TNG to the big screen, set less than a year after the end of the series ({{e|All Good Things...}}) and filmed straight after the completion of its last episodes. [[Jean-Luc Picard|Picard]] and the crew of the {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-D|-D}} must try to stop a brilliant [[scientist]] ([[Tolian Soran]]) from committing an act of genocide in order to enter the [[Nexus]], a mysterious hedonistic realm in which time has no meaning. Appearances by three of the TOS cast (Kirk, [[Montgomery Scott|Scotty]], and [[Pavel Chekov|Chekov]]) and the heroic death of Kirk who joins Picard by means of the [[Nexus]], served to "pass the torch" from the old generation to the next; the appearance of recurring enemies [[Lursa]] and [[B'Etor]] and the revelation of their fate provides a key link with the TNG series. The film also includes the destruction of the ''Enterprise''-D.
   
 
{{film|8}} (1996) brings back the TNG cast in their first truly independent big screen adventure aboard the new {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-E|-E}}. Picard and his crew are pitted against their deadliest foe from the series, the [[Borg]], who travel back in time to prevent the first [[warp]] flight by [[Zefram Cochrane]].
 
{{film|8}} (1996) brings back the TNG cast in their first truly independent big screen adventure aboard the new {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-E|-E}}. Picard and his crew are pitted against their deadliest foe from the series, the [[Borg]], who travel back in time to prevent the first [[warp]] flight by [[Zefram Cochrane]].
Line 258: Line 260:
 
In {{film|9}} (1998), Picard and crew discover a covert effort by Starfleet, in co-operation with the belligerent [[Son'a]], to relocate the inhabitants of a "fountain of youth" planet. Standing by his morals, Picard must take up arms against the Federation to save paradise.
 
In {{film|9}} (1998), Picard and crew discover a covert effort by Starfleet, in co-operation with the belligerent [[Son'a]], to relocate the inhabitants of a "fountain of youth" planet. Standing by his morals, Picard must take up arms against the Federation to save paradise.
   
{{film|10}} (2002) sees Picard and the ''Enterprise'' ordered to investigate the sudden fall of the [[Romulan]] government, replaced by a leader from their neighboring race, the [[Reman]]s. The dark secret of this new leader, [[Shinzon]], brings Picard into conflict in a way he never thought possible, and culminates in a fight to save Earth from a terrible weapon &ndash; at great cost. With the death or departure of several main characters &ndash; [[William T. Riker|Riker]], [[Deanna Troi|Troi]], [[Data]], and [[Beverly Crusher]] &ndash; this film marks the end of the TNG cast's adventures. Much as with the (chronological) final big screen appearance of the original cast, which laid the foundations of peace between the Federation and the Klingons, this film implies the establishment of an alliance between the Federation and the Romulans, enemies throughout the TNG era just as the Klingons had been in TOS.
+
{{film|10}} (2002) sees Picard and the ''Enterprise'' ordered to investigate the sudden fall of the [[Romulan]] government, replaced by a leader from their neighboring race, the [[Reman]]s. The dark secret of this new leader, [[Shinzon]], brings Picard into conflict in a way he never thought possible, and culminates in a fight to save Earth from a terrible weapon &ndash; at great cost. With the death of [[Data]] and the departure of [[William T. Riker|Riker]], [[Deanna Troi|Troi]], and [[Beverly Crusher]] from the ''Enterprise'', this film marked the end of the TNG cast's adventures (until {{s|PIC}}, nearly two decades later). Much as with the (chronological) final big screen appearance of the original cast, which laid the foundations of peace between the Federation and the Klingons, this film implies the establishment of an alliance between the Federation and the Romulans, enemies throughout the TNG era just as the Klingons had been in TOS.
   
{{film|11}} (2009) creates a new timeline in the ''Star Trek'' franchise, which is tied directly to the Prime Universe, effecting a return to the [[TOS]] era, albeit one populated by an all-new cast of actors. It also features a new look, and remains in-universe by explaining all changes as being inadvertently caused by time-traveling Romulan villain [[Nero]]. This film focuses on younger versions of Kirk, Spock, and the crew and showcases their very first mission aboard the ''Enterprise''.
+
{{film|11}} (2009) creates [[Alternate reality|a new timeline]] in the ''Star Trek'' franchise, which is tied directly to the prime universe, effecting a return to the TOS era, albeit one populated by an all-new cast of actors. It also features a completely new look, and remains in-universe by explaining all changes as being inadvertently caused by time-traveling Romulan villain [[Nero]]. This film focuses on younger versions of {{alt|James T. Kirk}}, {{alt|Spock}}, and the crew and showcases their very first mission aboard the {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701 alternate reality}} as they work together to stop the renegade Nero in his vengeful rampage to destroy Federation planets.
   
The sequel {{film|12}} (2013) picks up a year after the first film, where the crew is tested as they are sent to apprehend {{alt|Khan Noonien Singh|John Harrison}}, a traitor and mass murderer, and uncover corruption and a conspiracy to militarize Starfleet from within.
+
The sequel {{film|12}} (2013) picks up a year after the first film of the new timeline, where the crew is tested as they are sent to apprehend [[John Harrison]], a traitor and mass murderer, and uncover corruption and a conspiracy to militarize Starfleet from within.
   
The sequel {{film|13}} (2016) picks up three years after the second film, where the crew is in the third year of its [[Five-year mission]]. An encounter with an alien swarm, headed by the mysterious and powerful [[Krall]], has devastating consequences for the Enterprise and crew, and reveals a serious threat to the Federation.
+
{{film|13}} (2016) picks up three years after the second film, where the crew is in the third year of its [[five-year mission]]. An encounter with an alien swarm, headed by the mysterious and powerful [[Krall]], has devastating consequences for the ''Enterprise'' and crew, and reveals a serious threat to the Federation.
   
 
===Future===
 
===Future===
 
:'' See: {{film|14}}.''
 
:'' See: {{film|14}}.''
   
In a ''[[Wired]]'' article discussing the recent popularity of {{w|shared universe}}s on film, [[Paramount Motion Pictures Group]] president [[Marc Evans]] acknowledged the possibility of spin-off films. He said, "''I often think about the areas of the ''Star Trek'' universe that haven’t been taken advantage of. Like, I’ll be ridiculous with you, but what would ''{{w|Zero Dark Thirty|Star Trek: Zero Dark Thirty}}'' look like? Where is the {{w|SEAL Team Six}} of the ''Star Trek'' universe? That fascinates me.''" [http://www.wired.com/2015/11/building-the-star-wars-universe/]
+
In a November 2015 ''[[Wired]]'' article discussing the recent popularity of {{w|shared universe}}s on film, [[Paramount Motion Pictures Group]] president [[Marc Evans]] acknowledged the possibility of spin-off films. He said, "''I often think about the areas of the ''Star Trek'' universe that haven’t been taken advantage of. Like, I’ll be ridiculous with you, but what would ''{{w|Zero Dark Thirty|Star Trek: Zero Dark Thirty}}'' look like? Where is the {{w|SEAL Team Six}} of the ''Star Trek'' universe? That fascinates me.''" [http://www.wired.com/2015/11/building-the-star-wars-universe/]
  +
  +
On April 25, 2018, it was confirmed that two ''Star Trek'' films were in development. {{TrekMovie.com|2018/04/25/breaking-paramount-ceo-confirms-two-star-trek-films-in-development/}} However, on 10 January 2019, pursuant the dismal profitability performance of ''Beyond'' and a little over ten months later, ''Forbes'' magazine reported that the {{alt|Star Trek 4|fourth}}, yet untitled, ''Kelvin''-timeline film had been cancelled, which in itself followed in the wake of earlier reports that main performers [[Chris Pine]] ({{alt|James T. Kirk}}) and [[Chris Hemsworth]] ({{alt|George Kirk}}) had all already withdrawn their commitments to the project. While not overtly evident at the time, this decision had for all intents and purposes all the hallmarks of the definitive termination of the ''Kelvin'' timeline in the ''Star Trek'' (film) franchise, {{YouTube|type=v|XBfNYVwj8lw}} and conceivably of the ''Star Trek'' film franchise proper as well, for the time being (even though the [[Quentin Tarantino]] ''[[Star Trek XIV]]'' pitch is apparently still on the table, though it has not evolved beyond the consideration stage as of 2019), especially in the light of the film franchise being virtually rendered insignificant by those from the ''[[Star Wars]]'' and ''[[Marvel Comics]]'' ones in particular. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/01/10/paramount-has-canceled-star-trek-4-and-disneys-star-wars-is-to-blame/#89a70261dc2e]
  +
  +
The cancellation of the fourth alternate reality film could have serious consequences for Paramount, at least where ''Star Trek'' is concerned, as a production license of the kind extended to the studio usually includes a timetable clause in which a franchise-licensed studio is obligated to produce sequential franchise film outings within a preordained time-frame. When defaulting on the clause, the film production rights then automatically reverts to the licensor, in this case [[CBS Corporation]] (the franchise owner as of 2006), who is then free to do with it as it wills.
   
 
===Performance summary===
 
===Performance summary===
Domestically, combined and not taking inflation into account, the ''Star Trek'' features have grossed over US$1,624,963,755. Prior to the release of {{film|11}}, {{film|4}} had grossed more than the other films, coming in at US$109,713,132, while {{film|8}} had the largest-grossing opening weekend of all the films. {{film|11}} surpassed both of these records, but was itself surpassed by {{film|12}}. [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm]
+
Domestically, combined and not taking inflation into account, the ''Star Trek'' features have grossed a little over US$1,4 billion. Prior to the release of {{film|11}}, {{film|4}} had grossed more than the other films, coming in at US$109,713,132, while {{film|8}} had the largest-grossing opening weekend of all the films. The alternate reality {{film|11}} film surpassed both of these records, but was itself surpassed by its {{film|12}} sequel. [http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm]
   
Using the figures in the above tables, a "Top 5" worldwide performance record for the movies as of 2014 is summarized in the table below, which hold a few surprises. The costs are, as expected, in accordance with the sequence the movies were produced in, with ''The Motion Picture'', being the sole exception due to [[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Costs and revenues|various reasons]]. A bit surprising is that the best received movies are not always in concordance with them also being the highest grossing, ''The Voyage Home'', being the most consistent one. However, the biggest surprise in this regard, the bad press the movie received &ndash; among others by the studio itself, who considered the movie a failure at he time &ndash; in the 1980s and 1990s notwithstanding, is that ''The Motion Picture'' as one of the worst received movies, is concurrently also one of the highest grossing, as well as one of the most profitable movies in the franchise.
+
Using the figures in the above specified tables, a "Top 5" worldwide performance record for the films as of 2016 is summarized in the table below, which hold a few surprises. The costs are, as expected, in accordance with the sequence the films were produced in, with ''The Motion Picture'', being the sole exception due to [[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Costs and revenues|various reasons]]. Rather surprising is that the best received films are not always also the highest grossing, ''The Voyage Home ''being the most consistent one. However, the biggest surprise in this regard, the bad press the film received in the 1980s and 1990s notwithstanding &ndash; among others by the studio itself, who considered the film a failure at the time &ndash; is that ''The Motion Picture'' as one of the worst received films, is not only the highest grossing ''Original Crew'' film world-wide, but concurrently also one of the most profitable films in the franchise.
   
The table shows that the TNG movies were the least successful ones of the franchise in critical and financial terms, ''Star Trek: First Contact'' being the sole positive exception, the '''''apparent''''' profitability of ''Generations'' (see that movie's footnote above) notwithstanding. In terms of gross profitability, the six ''Original Crew'' movies remain to date the most successful ones by far.
+
The table shows that the TNG films were the least successful ones of the franchise in critical and financial terms, ''First Contact'' being the sole positive exception &ndash; even becoming the highest worldwide grossing ''Star Trek''-prime film &ndash; the ''apparent'' profitability of ''Generations'' (see that film's footnote above) notwithstanding. In terms of gross profitability, the six ''Original Series'' films remain to date the most successful ones by far.
   
Yet, while there is a correlation between costs and profitability, the real surprise lies in the recent lack of positive correlation between gross revenues and profitability. That ''Nemesis'' and ''Insurrection'' occupy the first two places in the worst profitability ranking is hardly a surprise, considering their poor performance at the box office. But a break occurred in the correlation with the two alternate reality movies, who were the most successful in terms of box office revenues of the franchise by far, but who also rank among the least profitable ones, making it appear that the more successful a movie is at the box office, the worse its profitability becomes.
+
However, while there is a correlation between costs and profitability, the real surprise lies in the recent lack of positive correlation between gross revenues and profitability. That ''Nemesis'' and ''Insurrection'' occupy the first and third place respectively in the worst profitability ranking comes hardly as a surprise, considering their poor performance at the box office. But a break occurred in the correlation with the three alternate reality films, which were the most successful in terms of box office revenues of the franchise by far, but which also rank among the least profitable, even losing, ones &ndash; ''Star Trek Beyond'' in particular, taking second place in the worst profitability ranking &ndash; making it appear that the more successful a film is at the box office, the worse its profitability becomes.
   
The significant jump in production budget of 29% (over ten times the official inflation rate for the period 1996-1998) between the movies ''First Contact'' and ''Insurrection'', validated [[Adam Lebowitz]]'s assertion that the technique of [[CGI|computer generated imagery]] (CGI) for producing [[:Category: Visual effects companies|visual effects]], which was used almost exclusively for the latter film and contrary to popular belief, is '''''not''''' cheaper than the traditional way of producing these. "''A lot of people say, 'CGI is a lot cheaper, isn't it,' but the way I like to think of it is that CGI is not cheaper necessarily, but you get a lot more for your money and you can tweak it a lot more.''", Lebowitz has stated. ({{STTM|1|6|47}}) If anything has exemplified Lebowitz's assessment, then it must have been the number of staffers [[Industrial Light & Magic]] had employed on their ''Star Trek'' projects; whereas ''The Search for Spock'' "only" needed 42 staffers, the staff-count for ''Star Trek'' (2009) had bourgeoned to no less than 315, virtually all of hem working as digital specialists.
+
The significant jump in production budget of 29% (over ten times the official inflation rate for the period 1996-1998) between the films ''First Contact'' and ''Insurrection'', validated [[Adam Lebowitz]]'s assertion that the technique of [[CGI|computer-generated imagery]] (CGI) for producing [[:Category: Visual effects companies|visual effects]], which was used almost exclusively for the latter film and contrary to popular belief, is ''not'' cheaper than the traditional way of producing these. "''A lot of people say, 'CGI is a lot cheaper, isn't it,' but the way I like to think of it is that CGI is not cheaper necessarily, but you get a lot more for your money and you can tweak it a lot more.''", Lebowitz has stated. ({{STTM|1|6|47}}) If anything has exemplified Lebowitz's assessment, then it must have been the number of staffers [[Industrial Light & Magic]] had employed on their ''Star Trek'' projects; whereas ''The Search for Spock'' "only" needed 42 staffers, the staff-count for ''Star Trek'' (2009) had burgeoned to no less than 315, virtually all of them working as digital specialists.
   
''Star Trek Into Darkness'' marks the first time that a ''Star Trek'' film performed better in the foreign markets than the home market, confirming an industry trend that has started in the early 2000s. [http://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-is-making-films-for-foreign-markets-2012-9]
+
''Star Trek Into Darkness'' marks the first time that a ''Star Trek'' film performed better in the foreign markets than the home market, confirming an industry trend that has started in the early 2000s. [http://www.businessinsider.com/hollywood-is-making-films-for-foreign-markets-2012-9]
  +
  +
As already stated [[#Future|above]], the 2016 film ''Star Trek Beyond'', even though it even surpassed its predecessor critically, performed catastrophically at the box-office (see also ''[[#Gross vs net profitability|below]]'') which became a major consideration for the cancellation in January 2019 of the planned fourth alternate reality film, slated to start production in that year.
 
{| class="grey" width="100%"
 
{| class="grey" width="100%"
!Ranking per 2014
+
!Ranking per 2017
 
!Best reception
 
!Best reception
 
!Worst reception
 
!Worst reception
Line 309: Line 311:
 
|{{film|11}}
 
|{{film|11}}
 
|{{film|5}}
 
|{{film|5}}
|{{film|11}}
+
|{{film|13}}
 
|{{film|3}}
 
|{{film|3}}
 
|{{film|4}}
 
|{{film|4}}
|{{film|9}}
+
|{{film|13}}
 
|-
 
|-
 
|3
 
|3
 
|{{film|2}}
 
|{{film|2}}
 
|{{film|1}}
 
|{{film|1}}
|{{film|8}}
+
|{{film|13}}
 
|{{film|3}}
 
|{{film|3}}
|{{film|10}}
+
|{{film|11}}
 
|{{film|4}}
 
|{{film|4}}
 
|{{film|3}}
 
|{{film|3}}
|{{film|12}}
+
|{{film|9}}
 
|-
 
|-
 
|4
 
|4
|{{film|12}}
+
|{{film|13}}
 
|{{film|7}}
 
|{{film|7}}
|{{film|1}}
+
|{{film|8}}
 
|{{film|2}}
 
|{{film|2}}
|{{film|9}}
+
|{{film|10}}
 
|{{film|5}}
 
|{{film|5}}
 
|{{film|1}}
 
|{{film|1}}
|{{film|11}}
+
|{{film|12}}
 
|-
 
|-
 
|5
 
|5
 
|{{film|4}}
 
|{{film|4}}
 
|{{film|9}}
 
|{{film|9}}
|{{film|4}}
+
|{{film|1}}
  +
|{{film|9}}
 
|{{film|9}}
 
|{{film|9}}
|{{film|8}}
 
 
|{{film|6}}
 
|{{film|6}}
 
|{{film|7}}
 
|{{film|7}}
 
|{{film|5}}
 
|{{film|5}}
 
|}
 
|}
:<small>''Note: If inflation adjusted, a slightly different ranking in costs and revenues might occur, but this has no influence on the profitability ranking as it is a relational calculation of costs and revenues. For convenience sake the absolute figures as listed in the above tables are used.''</small>
+
:{{small|''Note: When inflation adjusted, a slightly different ranking in costs and revenues might occur, but this has no influence on the profitability ranking as it is a relational calculation of costs and revenues. For the sake of expedience the absolute figures as listed in the above tables are used.''}}
  +
  +
====Gross ''vs'' net profitability====
  +
It must be understood that when box-office earnings surpass the direct production budget (thereby achieving gross profitability), it does not automatically mean that a Hollywood studio has gone "into (net) profit", ''i.e.'' meaning that the studio has now funding available for investments, dividend disbursements to shareholders and third party investors, executive bonuses, royalties and the like. Aside from the direct production costs, ''aka'' the production budget, the studio also needs to cover costs which, for legal as well as practical reasons, can not be directly assigned to a particular motion picture production and which are commonly referred to as "indirect" or "production overhead" costs, in parlance usually abbreviated to "overhead". The most obvious overhead elements consist of,
  +
* '''Operations/Management costs''': These are incurred in order to maintain a studio, such as the costs for the upkeep of real estate and equipment, as well as the salaries for personnel who have studio tenure, such as executive, accountancy, administrative, technical and marketing staffers. The ''actual'' production staffers on any motion picture project, are contracted on a per production basis, and their salaries are therefore directly assignable to the production budget. (''see also in this regard: [[Desilu Studios]]'')
  +
* '''Distribution costs''': These entail the box office percentages, distributors and theater owners charge the studio for showing their production to the public, in order to operate their own businesses. Since it is never known beforehand how many theaters will agree to show a studio production, these costs are traditionally considered overhead.
  +
* '''Marketing/Promotion costs''': While the average "[[Trekkie]]" might mistakenly believe that any ''Star Trek'' live-action production sells itself, this is a viewpoint emphatically not shared by Paramount. In effect, the official standpoint taken by Paramount is to dismiss Trekdom altogether, deeming it too inconsequential, both in scope and in size, to warrant the consideration of any possible ''Star Trek'' live-action (both film and television) production development in and of itself. (''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'', pp. 139-140) Paramount therefore treats each ''Star Trek'' production as they would any other, each required to attract a renewed viewership, and each therefore warranting considerable promotional efforts. While a general overall promotion strategy might be devised before the start of a production, the nature and extent is usually fleshed out over the course of the production (if only for the fact that trailers and commercials have to wait for footage to have been actually shot), meaning that cost totals can not be determined with any measure of objectivity beforehand, therefore causing them to be subordinated under overhead for practicality. Traditionally, marketing costs are a substantial part of the overhead, having inflated considerably from the early 2000s onward; [[David Gerrold]] has reported that these costs for ''The Motion Picture'' were already estimated at US$10-$20 million, accounting for a third to half of over-production budget expenditures alone, which, for those times, was already exceptionally high. (''{{dis|Starlog|magazine}}'', issue 30, p. 37)<br/>To an extent, Paramount's stance has validated itself by the considerable success ''The Voyage Home'', ''First Contact'', and the first two alternate universe films in particular have enjoyed, as these attracted a viewership (though not necessarily new fans) that went well above and beyond traditional Trekdom alone, as was evidenced by their respective outlying box office takes. Even more apparent, but then at the opposite end of the spectrum, became the validity, when Paramount ''failed'' to attract renewed viewership for ''Star Trek Beyond''; While the film was in general favorably received by critics and traditional Trekdom alike, the mere fact that others &ndash; enjoying a plethora of other alternatives by that time, most notably those of the by then relaunched ''Star Wars'' and the ongoing ''Marvel Comics'' film franchises &ndash; failed to show up at the cinemas, made ''Beyond'' at that time the second all-time worst performing ''Star Trek'' film for Paramount in terms of profitability, becoming a major consideration for the decision to cancel the fourth alternate universe film in early January 2019, reportedly '''because''' of relaunched ''Star Wars'', thereby conceivably cancelling the entire alternate universe story line all together. {{el|www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/01/10/paramount-has-canceled-star-trek-4-and-disneys-star-wars-is-to-blame}}
  +
* '''Sundry''' ''aka'' '''Unforeseen costs''': While largely self-explanatory, these costs can also include actual production costs incurred '''''after''''' principal photography &ndash; traditionally seen as the "Production" stage of a film production &ndash; has finished, which were not foreseen when the production budget was calculated. For example, its visual effects sequences slated to be entirely produced with CGI, ''Star Trek: Insurrection'' was nearing completion in post-production when it was decided that for some [[Son'a collector model#Son'a collector break-away models|key effects sequences]] the digital technique would not do, and that additional visual effects companies had to be brought in at the last minute to remedy the situation. Traditionally, the production budget is then not adjusted upward in these particular circumstances, with the additional expenditure booked as "unforeseen". Something similar had actually already occurred two decades earlier with ''The Motion Picture''. When the [[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Visual effects|February 1979 visual effects debacle]] took place after principal photography had wrapped, new effects companies had to be brought in by the studio at the eleventh hour to (re)produce these effects from scratch. In this specific case however, the studio decided to have the additional costs of approximately US$10 million included in its publicly divulged production budget as part of questionable studio politics, explaining the discrepancy between the official production budget listed above, and the widely propagated and best known one of US$45 million. (see: ''[[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Costs and revenues|''The Motion Picture'': Costs and revenues]]'') Reshooting scenes after-the-fact for which principal cast had to be recalled, also fall under this heading, as was the case with ''Generations'' and ''Insurrection''.
  +
* '''Corporate taxes''': Self-explanatory.
  +
  +
The traditional Hollywood rule of thumb of determining the point when a motion picture production becomes net profitable for a studio, has been the application of a multiplier to the direct production budget, or as Gerrold has further explained, "(&hellip;)''a film has to earn two to three times as much as it costs to make, before it ''breaks even''. Otherwise, you have lost your shirt.''" (''{{dis|Starlog|magazine}}'', issue 30, p. 37) Applying an average multiplier of 2.5 to the above listed figures, or achieving 250% of the production budget in box-office takes, reveal that two of the ''Star Trek'' films have barely broke even (unsurprisingly including ''The Final Frontier'', but surprisingly the 2009 blockbuster outing as well), whereas the last two ''Next Generation'' films, as well as ''Star Trek Into Darkness'' and ''Star Trek Beyond'' have actually lost the studio money, substantial losses at that in the cases of ''Insurrection'', ''Nemesis'' and ''Beyond''.
  +
  +
One obvious rationale for the lack of profitability of the alternate reality films lies in the circumstance that Paramount had, together with Warner Bros. in a US$60 million deal, partnered up with [[Bad Robot Productions]] in 2006 for the development of its motion picture projects, those of ''Star Trek'' included. {{el|www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bad-robot-marches-clark-lingg-146394}} Therefore, in addition to the undisclosed, but undoubtedly hefty license fees Paramount had to pay franchise owner CBS Corporation, all income derived from the box offices takes needed now to be shared with a major co-producer as well, where there had been none before, cutting deeply in the gross profits. The fact that Bad Robot withdrew from the partnership in November 2018, was in effect one of the other major considerations for Paramount to cancel the fourth alternate reality film in January 2019. {{el|deadline.com/2018/11/jj-abrams-bad-robot-new-films-stefan-grube-logic-megan-amram-1202501991}}
  +
  +
As a whole, the four decades old film franchise performance of all thirteen films combined yields the following, showing that the film franchise ''has'' been net profitable for the studio, albeit modestly so, mostly because of the alternate reality films as they involved he largest amount of money. When applying the 2.5 multiplier, an approximately 4.2% net return on investment remains, until the 2010s not even enough to cancel out inflation and then easily attainable by just putting your money in a bank savings account. The studio therefore had to mostly rely on revenues stemming from other spin-off franchise elements in all forms and formats, such as television rights and merchandise, in order to show shareholders/investors a more healthy rate of return.
  +
{| class="grey" width="100%"
  +
!Critical Reception
  +
!Domestic Gross
  +
!Foreign Gross
  +
!Worldwide Gross
  +
!Budget (est)
  +
!Profitability Gross
  +
|-
  +
|'''71% (avg)'''
  +
|'''1,400,952,742'''
  +
|'''862,679,597'''
  +
|'''2,263,632,339'''
  +
|'''868,800,000'''
  +
|'''261%'''
  +
|}
  +
  +
It is in this regard that another Paramount production deserves a mention, the 1997 eleven Academy Award winning ''Titanic'', served by such ''Star Trek'' alumni as [[Robert Legato]], [[Don Pennington]], [[James Horner]] and [[Tony Meininger]]. With a worldwide gross of US$2.2 billion &ndash; being the very first film in motion picture history to breach the two billion barrier &ndash; against a production budget of US$200 million, it did achieve a for the times mind-boggling 1,100% gross profitability. This was especially mind-boggling when the amount of money involved was considered, as that film alone, grossing the same amount as all thirteen ''Star Trek'' films combined, netted the studio US$1.7 billion, that is, in theory at least when discounting the below-mentioned "[[#Hollywood accounting|Hollywood accounting]]" phenomenon. {{el|www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id{{=}}titanic.htm}} The film stands to this very day out as Paramount's biggest success in its entire history by far, as well as being universally considered as one of the motion picture industry's greatest triumphs for that matter. Like it had with ''The Motion Picture'', the studio had staked its very continued existence on ''Titanic''. (see: ''[[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Costs and revenues|''The Motion Picture'': Costs and revenues]]'')
  +
  +
Still, while the rationale behind the net profitability determining methodology is valid, the methodology itself has proven to be susceptible to figures manipulation, leading up to the infamous "Hollywood accounting" phenomenon, possibly explaining not only the apparent high profitability of ''The Wrath of Khan'' and ''Generations'' &ndash; an absolute rarity where "Hollywood Accounting" is concerned as explained below &ndash; but also the recent and apparent lack of profitability of the alternate reality films. It should concurrently be noted that additional revenues, derived from later merchandise, television rights and home media sales, are traditionally discounted by Hollywood studios in their public performance assessments for a film, meaning that even loss generating productions have the potential to turn net profitable in the long run. However, the circumstance that Bad Robot had, through its many subsidiaries, negotiated a substantial say &ndash; and thus a part of the revenue stream &ndash; in the resultant merchandise, including the home media formats, meant that that potential had for Paramount been considerably diminished as well where the alternate reality films were concerned.
  +
  +
====Hollywood accounting====
  +
"'''{{w|Hollywood accounting}}'''" or "'''Hollywood bookkeeping'''" as it is also referred to, is a particularly nefarious phenomenon in the motion picture industry, which entails that, simply put, production stakeholders, such as shareholders, actors, producers, writers, production companies, local governments and the like, who have entered in a net profit sharing agreement with the studio, are essentially "defrauded" as much as possible out of their legally entitled shares by means of untoward bookkeeping methods. These typically entail inflating expenses such as production, distribution and marketing (a very popular one with studios, as these, whether or not justified, have gone truly through the roof from the early 2000s onward), overhead and, most notoriously, the production budget "sundry costs" with as much elements as possible, not rarely utterly undue.
  +
  +
The industry phenomenon is to date deeply ingrained, widespread and pervasive and by no means limited to Paramount Pictures or film productions alone, as ''Star Trek'' creator [[Gene Roddenberry]] did find out to his detriment after he discovered he too was at receiving end of this phenomenon when he signed both his 18 May 1965 {{s|TOS}} and 1978 ''The Motion Picture'' '''net''' profit sharing deals. "''The greatest science fiction in show biz is in the accounting''", a chagrined Roddenberry declared when he ordered his attorney [[Leonard Maizlish]] to start legal proceedings against the studio in 1981. (''{{dis|Starlog|magazine}}'', issue 43, p. 14) A particularly notorious instance was for example {{w|Lucasfilm}}, who in 2009 still maintained that their 1983 third ''Star Wars'' installment, ''Return of the Jedi'', "has never gone into profit", despite having earned a recorded US$475 million against a production budget of US$32.5 million (constituting a whopping 1,462% gross profitability, but while impressive, involving far less money than the above-mentioned ''Titanic'') by that point, shortchanging several actors who had unwisely entered into a net profit sharing agreement. {{el|www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit}}
  +
  +
Paramount itself got caught in the act when it was successfully sued by screen writer Art Buchwald (thereby succeeding where Maizlish, on behalf of Roddenberry, had seemingly failed seven years earlier) who found himself in a similar predicament in the case of Paramount's 1988 motion picture ''Coming to America'' (starring [[Eddie Murphy]]), which grossed over ten times its budget of US$39 million. It was actually this case that brought the "Hollywood accounting" phenomenon to the full awareness of the general public. Finding itself highly scrutinized by the media at the time, Paramount was ultimately ordered by the courts to settle for US$900,000 in 1992. {{el|articles.latimes.com/1992-03-17/local/me-3895_1_net-profit}}
  +
  +
However, as it is still very much a gray area in corporate accounting law, it has, despite the for the industry adverse court ruling, not in the least deterred Paramount, or any other Hollywood studio for that matter, to continue with the practice unabated, to the point where it has become near-pandemic in the 2000s. Several Hollywood reporters have recorded that few, if any, of the biggest box-office successes of the past decades had, as of 2010, actually turned in an official net studio profit, that is, on paper at least. {{el|deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting-51886}} {{el|www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood-accounting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml}} This actually made Hollywood studios one of the very worst properties to invest in, as many shareholders can now attest to. Despite a class-action brought against the entire industry before a Federal Court in 1996 {{el|articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-06-19/features/1996171140_1_class-members-jim-garrison-net-profits}}, the financial gains apparently still far outweigh the costs of any possible legal litigation. The three alternate universe films, ''Star Trek'', ''Into Darkness'', and ''Beyond'', for example, are officially reported as among the least profitable, even losing, ''Star Trek'' productions by Paramount, despite grossing close to US$1.2 billion dollar between the three of them, as specified above.
  +
  +
Stakeholders who still do enter into a profit sharing agreement, have however, learned the lessons of their unfortunate predecessors, and do so on the basis of '''gross''' profit (as indeed tax authorities have always done), instead of net profits, as gross profit is determined by only charging directly assignable production costs to the revenues under accounting laws. And indeed, creator Roddenberry himself did not repeat the mistakes he made back in 1965 and 1978, when he signed a profit sharing deal with Paramount in 1986 for {{s|TNG}}, where it was stipulated that he was to receive 35% of the adjusted '''gross''' profits derived from the series. {{bl|www.gmsr.com/writing/Roddenberry%20v%20Roddenberry%20AOB.pdf}}
  +
  +
Studios countered with transferring as much production unrelated expenditures to the (in)direct production costs as they possibly could get away with legally. Notorious in this respect is the transfer of the substantial executive bonuses, which, rightfully, should be paid from the net profits, to production overhead, from which regular salaries are paid. The even more savvy stakeholders will try to negotiate a gross revenue sharing, ''aka'' "box-office take", agreement, but this is, of course, vehemently opposed by Hollywood studios and is only reserved for the few very biggest and most powerful of the Hollywood stars {{el|slate.com/culture/2006/01/how-the-studios-compensate-the-most-powerful-movie-stars.html}}, such as {{w|Tom Cruise}} &ndash; who successfully reinitialized the ''[[Mission: Impossible]]'' franchise not only as star, but as co-producing company as well under which he receives his box-office takes {{el|slate.com/business/2006/09/the-real-reason-tom-cruise-got-fired-it-s-weirder-than-you-think.html}} &ndash; and which Roddenberry was most certainly not.
   
====Gross ''vs'' Net profitability====
+
In regard to the ''Star Trek'' films, it is known that Paramount has charged incurred costs for undeveloped film projects against either the production budget, the overhead, or both of subsequent films that were realized, most notably ''The Motion Picture'' and ''The Undiscovered Country''. While the act is in itself not illegal, it is a practice not commonly followed in most other industries (the pharmaceutical industry standing out as a notorious exception) and actually debatable from a business economics point of view; research and development costs of projects that do not come to fruition are usually written off and are commonly charged against the balance sheets of corporations. This is a sound generally accepted accounting principle for businesses (as stated in any business economics text book and where the principles are known under their acronym {{w|Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States)|GAAP}}) as it prevents unwarranted cost price inflation with undue elements &ndash; thereby avoiding pollution of pre-production viability assessments &ndash; for products that ''do'' come to fruition. Paramount's divergent actions therefore can be construed as an instance of Hollywood accounting. The very rare ''positive'' &ndash; as in inflating the profitability instead of the costs &ndash; applications of Hollywood accounting in the cases of ''The Wrath of Khan'' and ''Generations'' were motivated by internal studio politics. (see also in this regard: [[Star Trek: The Motion Picture#Costs and revenues|''The Motion Picture'': Costs and revenues]])
It should be understood that when box-office earnings surpass the direct production budget (thereby achieving gross profitability), it does not automatically mean that a Hollywood studio has gone "into (net) profit", ''i.e.'' meaning that the studio has now funding available for investments, dividend disbursements to shareholders, executive bonuses, royalties and the like. Aside from the direct production costs, ''aka'' the production budget, the studio also needs to cover costs which, for legal as well as practical reasons, can not be directly assigned to a particular motion picture production and which are commonly referred to as "indirect" or "production overhead" costs, in parlance usually abbreviated to "overhead". The most obvious overhead elements consist of,
 
*'''Operations/Management costs''': These are incurred in order to maintain a studio, such as the costs for the upkeep of real estate and equipment, as well as the salaries for personnel who have studio tenure, such as executive, accountancy, administrative, technical and marketing staffers. The ''actual'' production staffers on any motion picture project, are contracted on a per production basis, and their salaries are therefore directly assignable to the production budget. (''see also in this regard: [[Desilu Studios]]'')
 
*'''Distribution costs''': These entail the box office percentages, distributors and theater owners charge the studio for showing their production to the public, in order to operate their own businesses. Since it is never known beforehand how many theaters will agree to show a studio production, these costs are traditionally considered overhead.
 
*'''Marketing/Promotion costs''': While the average "[[Trekkie]]" might mistakenly believe that any ''Star Trek'' live-action production sells itself, this is a viewpoint emphatically not shared by Paramount. In effect, the official standpoint taken by Paramount is to dismiss Trekdom altogether, deeming it too inconsequential, both in scope and in size, to warrant the consideration of any possible ''Star Trek'' live-action production development in itself. (''[[A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager]]'', pp. 139-140) Paramount therefore treats each ''Star Trek'' production as they would any other, each required to attract a renewed viewership, and each therefore warranting considerable promotional efforts. While a general overall promotion strategy might be devised before the start of a production, the nature and extent is usually fleshed out over the course of the production (if only for the fact that trailers and commercials have to wait for footage to have been actually shot), meaning that cost totals can not be determined with any measure of objectivity beforehand, therefore causing them to be subordinated under overhead for practicality. Traditionally, marketing costs are a substantial part of the overhead, having inflated considerably from the early 2000s onward; [[David Gerrold]] has reported that these costs for ''The Motion Picture'' were already estimated at US$10-$20 million, accounting for a third to half of over-production budget expenditures alone, which, for those times, was exceptionally high. (''{{dis|Starlog|magazine}}'', issue 30, p. 37) To an extent, Paramount's stance has validated itself by the considerable success ''The Voyage Home'', ''First Contact'' and the two alternate universe films in particular have enjoyed, as these attracted a viewership that went well above and beyond traditional Trekdom alone, as was evidenced by their respective outlying box-office takes.
 
*'''Corporate taxes''': Self-explanatory.
 
The traditional Hollywood rule of thumb of determining the point when a motion picture production becomes net profitable for a studio, has been the application of a multiplier to the direct production budget, or as Gerrold has further explained, "(...)''a film has to earn two to three times as much as it costs to make, before it ''breaks even''. Otherwise, you have lost your shirt.''" (''{{dis|Starlog|magazine}}'', issue 30, p. 37) Applying an average multiplier of 2.5 to the above listed figures, or achieving 250% of the production budget in box-office takes, reveal that two of the ''Star Trek'' movies have barely broke even (unsurprisingly including ''The Final Frontier'', but surprisingly the 2009 blockbuster outing as well), whereas the last two ''Next Generation'' movies, as well as ''Star Trek Into Darkness'' have actually lost the studio money.
 
   
Still, it should be noted that, while the rationale behind the net profitability determining methodology is valid, the methodology itself has proven to be susceptible to figures manipulation, leading up to the infamous "{{w|Hollywood accounting}}" phenomenon, possibly explaining the recent and apparent lack of profitability of the two alternate universe film. (for a more detailed treatise on the phenomenon, ''see: [[Paramount Pictures#Footnotes|Paramount Pictures, Footnotes]]'') It should concurrently be noted that additional revenues, derived from later merchandise, television rights and home media sales, are traditionally discounted by Hollywood studios in their public performance assessments for a movie, meaning that even loss generating productions have the potential to turn net profitable in the long run.
+
The 2006 separation of the ''Star Trek'' television and film productions under two newly formed independent holding companies, resulting in that Paramount Pictures, now a holding of {{dis|Viacom|2006-2019|(new) Viacom}}, had to pay licensing fees to newly formed CBS Corporation in order to produce subsequent ''Star Trek'' (and ''Mission: Impossible'' {{el|www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-a-merged-cbs-viacom-could-try-compete-hollywood-giants-1225453}}) films, has aggravated the situation. A closely guarded trade secret, the amount of the fees were now a newly added part to the production budget/overhead, which was not there previously, and might partly explain the '''''apparent''''' lack of net profitability of the three alternate universe films. Some critics have surmised that this had been part of the split considerations all along, somewhat supported by the fact that both new entities have remained under the ultimate ownership and control of holding conglomerate [[National Amusements]] &ndash; ''and'' to an extent implicitly conceded as such in actuality by its CEO and owner Sumner Redstone, who had expressed his desire to "unlock value" by boosting stock value and earning potential of the at the time faster growing soon-to-be "new" Viacom. {{el|variety.com/2005/biz/news/media-a-house-redivided-1117923912}} {{el|www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/business/media/viacom-completes-split-into-2-companies.html}}
   
 
==Cast and crew listings==
 
==Cast and crew listings==
Line 368: Line 369:
 
* There have been thirteen ''[[Star Trek]]'' cinematic features released between {{y|1979}} and {{y|2016}}. [http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001885.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1]
 
* There have been thirteen ''[[Star Trek]]'' cinematic features released between {{y|1979}} and {{y|2016}}. [http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118001885.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1]
 
* Three films were produced by [[Harve Bennett]] (he was also an executive producer on one), while [[Rick Berman]] produced all four films featuring the cast of [[TNG]].
 
* Three films were produced by [[Harve Bennett]] (he was also an executive producer on one), while [[Rick Berman]] produced all four films featuring the cast of [[TNG]].
* [[Nicholas Meyer]], [[J.J. Abrams]], [[Leonard Nimoy]], and [[Jonathan Frakes]] each directed two of the films, with the latter two also appearing as co-stars in their respective roles as [[Spock]] and [[William Riker]]. One of the films ({{film|5}}) was directed by its lead actor, [[William Shatner]], appearing as [[James T. Kirk|Kirk]].
+
* [[Nicholas Meyer]], [[J.J. Abrams]], [[Leonard Nimoy]], and [[Jonathan Frakes]] each directed two of the films, with the latter two also appearing as co-stars in their respective roles as [[Spock]] and [[William T. Riker]]. One of the films ({{film|5}}) was directed by its lead actor, [[William Shatner]], appearing as [[James T. Kirk|Kirk]].
* Leonard Nimoy has made more appearances in the film series than any other principal cast member of any ''Star Trek'' series, appearing as Spock in the first six films together with an appearance in {{film|11}} and a brief cameo in {{film|12}}. He also makes a brief appearance in {{film|4}} as a [[Mercy Hospital visitors|visitor]] to [[Mercy Hospital]]. William Shatner, [[James Doohan]], and [[Walter Koenig]] (Kirk, [[Montgomery Scott|Scotty]], and [[Pavel Chekov|Chekov]]) all appear in the first seven consecutive films. [[Majel Barrett]] has also appeared in seven of the films, albeit playing different roles: she appears as [[Christine Chapel]] in {{film|1}} and {{film|4}}, and supplied her voice for the ''Enterprise'' computers in {{film|7}}, {{film|8}}, {{film|9}}, {{film|10}}, and {{film|11}}.
+
* Leonard Nimoy has made more appearances in the film series than any other principal cast member of any ''Star Trek'' series, appearing as Spock in the first six films together with an appearance in {{film|11}} and a brief cameo in {{film|12}} and his likeness is seen in {{film|13}}, as are those of his original cast mates. William Shatner, [[James Doohan]], and [[Walter Koenig]] (Kirk, [[Montgomery Scott|Scotty]], and [[Pavel Chekov|Chekov]]) all appear in the first seven consecutive films. [[Majel Barrett]] has also appeared in seven of the films, albeit playing different roles: she appears as [[Christine Chapel]] in {{film|1}} and {{film|4}}, and supplied her voice for the ''Enterprise'' computers in {{film|7}}, {{film|8}}, {{film|9}}, {{film|10}} and {{film|11}}.
 
* [[Michael Dorn]] is the only member of the [[TNG]] cast to appear in more than four of the films. He plays his familiar character [[Worf]] in all four TNG-based films and has a cameo as Worf's (presumed) ancestor in {{film|6}}.
 
* [[Michael Dorn]] is the only member of the [[TNG]] cast to appear in more than four of the films. He plays his familiar character [[Worf]] in all four TNG-based films and has a cameo as Worf's (presumed) ancestor in {{film|6}}.
* Owing to Worf's transfer onto the crew of DS9 prior to the events of {{film|8}}, Dorn is technically the only DS9 cast member to appear in any of the films playing his usual character. [[Rene Auberjonois]] appears in {{film|6}} playing a different character than his usual one on DS9; his scenes were cut for the film's original theatrical release but subsequently restored for the film's VHS, DVD, and Special Edition releases. Both [[Armin Shimerman]] and [[Max Grodenchik]] filmed scenes for {{film|9}} - the former as his familiar character [[Quark]] and the latter as an unnamed [[Trill]] Starfleet officer - but these scenes were cut from the film as released.
+
* Owing to Worf's transfer onto the crew of DS9 prior to the events of {{film|8}}, Dorn is technically the only DS9 cast member to appear in any of the films playing his usual character. [[Rene Auberjonois]] appears in {{film|6}} playing a different character than his usual one on DS9; his scenes were cut for the film's original theatrical release but subsequently restored for the film's VHS, DVD, and Special Edition releases. Both [[Armin Shimerman]] and [[Max Grodenchik]] filmed scenes for {{film|9}} &ndash; the former as his familiar character [[Quark]] and the latter as an unnamed [[Trill]] Starfleet officer &ndash; but these scenes were cut from the film as released.
 
* [[Kate Mulgrew]], [[Robert Picardo]], [[Tim Russ]], and [[Ethan Phillips]] are the only [[VOY]] cast members to appear in any of the films &ndash; Mulgrew plays her familiar character in {{film|10}}, Picardo plays an [[EMH Mark I]] in {{film|8}}, wherein Phillips also appears &ndash; uncredited, at his own request, as a different character. (Having never before appeared in a ''Trek'' production without heavy prosthetics, he thought it would be amusing to leave fans wondering if the holographic Human he played was or wasn't him.) Russ appears in {{film|7}} as a Human {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-B|-B}} crewman.
 
* [[Kate Mulgrew]], [[Robert Picardo]], [[Tim Russ]], and [[Ethan Phillips]] are the only [[VOY]] cast members to appear in any of the films &ndash; Mulgrew plays her familiar character in {{film|10}}, Picardo plays an [[EMH Mark I]] in {{film|8}}, wherein Phillips also appears &ndash; uncredited, at his own request, as a different character. (Having never before appeared in a ''Trek'' production without heavy prosthetics, he thought it would be amusing to leave fans wondering if the holographic Human he played was or wasn't him.) Russ appears in {{film|7}} as a Human {{USS|Enterprise|NCC-1701-B|-B}} crewman.
* To date, no principal cast members from [[ENT]] have appeared in any of the films, although [[Peter Weller]] (who guest-starred in two episodes of that series) plays a major role in {{film|12}}.
+
* To date, no principal cast members from {{s|ENT}} have appeared in any of the films, although [[Peter Weller]] (who guest-starred in two episodes of that series) plays a major role in {{film|12}}.
 
* Between {{film|4}} and {{film|11}}, all the films were produced in tandem with one or more of the spin-off series. {{film|5}} and {{film|6}} were made during the run of TNG; production on {{film|7}} began while the final episodes of TNG were being shot, and while DS9 was in production; {{film|8}} and {{film|9}} were both produced during the runs of DS9 and VOY, and {{film|10}} was made while ENT was in production. {{film|11}} was the first since {{film|4}} to be produced without any other ''Star Trek'' project in progress.
 
* Between {{film|4}} and {{film|11}}, all the films were produced in tandem with one or more of the spin-off series. {{film|5}} and {{film|6}} were made during the run of TNG; production on {{film|7}} began while the final episodes of TNG were being shot, and while DS9 was in production; {{film|8}} and {{film|9}} were both produced during the runs of DS9 and VOY, and {{film|10}} was made while ENT was in production. {{film|11}} was the first since {{film|4}} to be produced without any other ''Star Trek'' project in progress.
* Perhaps reflecting their popularity as an alien race, the Klingons appear more than any other throughout the series of films - they appear, or are mentioned, in all twelve of the films released so far. The only two in which no Klingon characters appear are {{film|2}} and {{film|11}}, although both films depict the [[Kobayashi Maru scenario]] which features Klingon ships. Scenes featuring Klingon characters were shot but not included in the latter film.
+
* Perhaps reflecting their popularity as an alien race, the Klingons appear more than any other throughout the series of films &ndash; they appear, or are mentioned, in twelve of the films released so far. No Klingon characters appear in {{film|2}}, {{film|11}} or {{film|13}}, although the former two films depict the [[Kobayashi Maru scenario]] which features Klingon ships. Scenes featuring Klingon characters were shot but not included in {{film|11}}.
   
 
===The odd number / even number phenomenon===
 
===The odd number / even number phenomenon===
 
* A number of ''Star Trek'' fans have expressed the opinion that the even-numbered films are generally better than the odd-numbered ones. Such an appraisal is obviously subjective, but it has its roots in a number of factors. The even-numbered films (apart from {{film|10}}) have enjoyed relatively greater success at the box office and higher critical acclaim, as opposed to various lukewarm reviews received by the odd-numbered films (with the exception of {{film|11}}). Fans and critics have also noted that, in their opinions, the even-numbered films are better paced and more action-packed, with more memorable story lines, eminently quotable scripts and exciting special effects. (The first two films are often held up as examples of this trend from the outset of the series: {{film|1}} has very few battle or dramatic action sequences, presenting Kirk and crew with a mostly cerebral challenge, while {{film|2}} is dominated by epic conflict, resulting in several battle sequences and heavy damage to the ''Enterprise'' and its crew.)
 
* A number of ''Star Trek'' fans have expressed the opinion that the even-numbered films are generally better than the odd-numbered ones. Such an appraisal is obviously subjective, but it has its roots in a number of factors. The even-numbered films (apart from {{film|10}}) have enjoyed relatively greater success at the box office and higher critical acclaim, as opposed to various lukewarm reviews received by the odd-numbered films (with the exception of {{film|11}}). Fans and critics have also noted that, in their opinions, the even-numbered films are better paced and more action-packed, with more memorable story lines, eminently quotable scripts and exciting special effects. (The first two films are often held up as examples of this trend from the outset of the series: {{film|1}} has very few battle or dramatic action sequences, presenting Kirk and crew with a mostly cerebral challenge, while {{film|2}} is dominated by epic conflict, resulting in several battle sequences and heavy damage to the ''Enterprise'' and its crew.)
* By the time the TNG movies were being produced, the "odd/even" phenomenon was effectively regarded as a curse, with members of the production crew fearing that, despite their best efforts, future odd-numbered productions were fated to be less successful than even-numbered ones. [[Jonathan Frakes]], when interviewed by ''[[Star Trek Monthly]]'' during pre-production for {{film|9}}, commented that he was looking forward to directing his second film "even though it's an odd-numbered ''Star Trek''." In 2002, however, the phenomenon was broken by the release of {{film|10}}, which experienced the lowest box-office takings of any ''Star Trek'' film to date and was poorly received by even long-standing fans. (Though to a few, this became an even further joke - a ''Star Trek'' film which was a multiple of five was cursed to fail catastrophically, as ''Nemesis'' pulled in poor reviews and revenue in a similar fashion to ''The Final Frontier''.)
+
* By the time the TNG films were being produced, the "odd/even" phenomenon was effectively regarded as a curse, with members of the production crew fearing that, despite their best efforts, future odd-numbered productions were fated to be less successful than even-numbered ones. [[Jonathan Frakes]], when interviewed by ''[[Star Trek Monthly]]'' {{magcite|Which issue?}} during pre-production for {{film|9}}, commented that he was looking forward to directing his second film "even though it's an odd-numbered ''Star Trek''." In 2002, however, the phenomenon was broken by the release of {{film|10}}, which experienced the lowest box-office takings of any ''Star Trek'' film to date and was poorly received by even long-standing fans. (Though to a few, this became an even further joke &ndash; a ''Star Trek'' film which was a multiple of five was cursed to fail catastrophically, as ''Nemesis'' pulled in poor reviews and revenue in a similar fashion to ''The Final Frontier''.)
 
* The phenomenon has seemingly been broken further by the critical success of {{film|11}}, which has obtained a 95% on the review aggregator website [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ Rotten Tomatoes], as well as an opening weekend gross of nearly twice the full run of {{film|10}}. [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]
 
* The phenomenon has seemingly been broken further by the critical success of {{film|11}}, which has obtained a 95% on the review aggregator website [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ Rotten Tomatoes], as well as an opening weekend gross of nearly twice the full run of {{film|10}}. [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/]
* In a 1999 episode of the British sitcom ''Spaced'', the phenomenon was mentioned by the show's lead character, Tim Bisley, who was played by [[Simon Pegg]] &ndash; an irony not lost on Pegg during and after his work on {{film|11}}.
+
* In a 1999 episode of the British sitcom ''Spaced'', the phenomenon was mentioned by the series' lead character, Tim Bisley, who was played by [[Simon Pegg]] &ndash; an irony not lost on Pegg during and after his work on {{film|11}}.
   
 
===''Star Trek: Deep Space Nine''===
 
===''Star Trek: Deep Space Nine''===
* Whereas the preceding live-action television series had open endings that allowed for continuation into motion picture format, ''[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]]'' ended quite firmly and conclusively, with all its various plot lines resolved and the departure of various main characters. Any subsequent film would therefore have required a significantly different premise and different casting, departing radically from the series' format which had been so familiar to its fan base. On the possibility of a ''[[Star Trek: Deep Space Nine]]'' film ever happening, [[Ira Steven Behr]] commented: "''I don't think so. I think we could do a pretty kick-ass ''Deep Space Nine'' movie, but not even in my wildest imaginations do I consider it''". He also commented "''The only ''Trek'' I think about is ''Deep Space Nine'', to be honest. If they did a ''Deep Space Nine'' film, I certainly would like to be involved if that ever happened, which I doubt''". [http://tvfilter.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=amonth%3D5%26ayear%3D2006]
+
* Whereas the preceding live-action television series had open endings that allowed for continuation into motion picture format, {{s|DS9}} ended quite firmly and conclusively, with all its various plotlines resolved and the departure of various main characters. Any subsequent film would therefore have required a significantly different premise and different casting, departing radically from the series' format which had been so familiar to its fan base. On the possibility of a {{s|DS9}} film ever happening, [[Ira Steven Behr]] commented: "''I don't think so. I think we could do a pretty kick-ass ''Deep Space Nine'' film, but not even in my wildest imaginations do I consider it''". He also commented "''The only ''Trek'' I think about is ''Deep Space Nine'', to be honest. If they did a ''Deep Space Nine'' film, I certainly would like to be involved if that ever happened, which I doubt''". [http://tvfilter.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=amonth%3D5%26ayear%3D2006]
 
* After the release of {{film|9}}, [[Patrick Stewart]] commented, "''I think we should pass the mantle on to the ''Deep Space Nine'' characters. We don't want to become The Rolling Stones of the ''Star Trek'' films''". [http://nicky_smith.tripod.com/sfx.html] [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GGVcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=blcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2835,4988214&dq=deep-space-nine&hl=en]
 
* After the release of {{film|9}}, [[Patrick Stewart]] commented, "''I think we should pass the mantle on to the ''Deep Space Nine'' characters. We don't want to become The Rolling Stones of the ''Star Trek'' films''". [http://nicky_smith.tripod.com/sfx.html] [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GGVcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=blcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2835,4988214&dq=deep-space-nine&hl=en]
* [[Andrew Robinson]] commented "''My feeling is that there is never going to be a ''Deep Space Nine'' movie, they still have more to go with ''The Next Generation''. I think it ({{e|What You Leave Behind}}) was really the right way to end the series.'' [http://www.littlereview.com/getcritical/trektalk/robinson.htm]
+
* [[Andrew Robinson]] commented "''My feeling is that there is never going to be a ''Deep Space Nine'' film, they still have more to go with ''The Next Generation''. I think it ({{e|What You Leave Behind}}) was really the right way to end the series.'' [http://www.littlereview.com/getcritical/trektalk/robinson.htm]
* A campaign for a ''Deep Space Nine'' film (or a miniseries) was launched in 2000 by fans Stacy Powell and Doug Wilson. [[Nana Visitor]] was thrilled to hear of the existence of the campaign and [[J.G. Hertzler]] and [[David B. Levinson]] joked with fans to "''take one of these [flyers], don't throw it away or I'll come after you.''" [http://www.trektoday.com/news/150101_01.shtml] [http://www.petitiononline.com/ds9hrzns/petition.html]
+
* A campaign for a ''Deep Space Nine'' film (or a miniseries) was launched in 2000 by fans Stacy Powell and Doug Wilson. [[Nana Visitor]] was thrilled to hear of the existence of the campaign and [[J.G. Hertzler]] and [[David B. Levinson]] joked with fans to "''take one of these [flyers], don't throw it away or I'll come after you.''" {{TrekToday|news/150101_01.shtml}} [http://www.petitiononline.com/ds9hrzns/petition.html]
* Fans Terry Harris and Gisele La Roche also launched a petition for a ''Deep Space Nine'' film, receiving several positive responses from actors. {{brokenlink|http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/ds9petition/history.html}}
+
* Fans Terry Harris and Gisele La Roche also launched a petition for a ''Deep Space Nine'' film, receiving several positive responses from actors. {{bl|www.starfleetlibrary.com/ds9petition/history.html}}
* Notwithstanding the foregoing, elements from the series have appeared in all TNG films. The ''Enterprise''-D crew wore the uniforms which had been introduced on ''Deep Space Nine'' (in addition to their own series' uniforms) in {{film|7}}; the uniforms were also used on ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'', which premiered several months after the film's release. The {{USS|Defiant|2370}} appears in the [[Battle of Sector 001]] during {{film|8}}, under the command of [[Worf]] ([[Michael Dorn]]), who had become a regular character on DS9 by that time; he also appears in {{film|9}}. Both {{film|9}} and {{film|10}} contain references to the [[Dominion War]] story arc from the series. For {{film|9}}, a scene was written and filmed involving an appearance by [[Armin Shimerman]] as [[Quark]]; this was cut from the film, but a still from it can be found among the extras on the DVD release.
+
* Notwithstanding the foregoing, elements from the series have appeared in all TNG films. The ''Enterprise''-D crew wore the uniforms which had been introduced on ''Deep Space Nine'' (in addition to their own series' uniforms) in {{film|7}}; the uniforms were also used on {{s|VOY}}, which premiered several months after the film's release. The {{USS|Defiant|2370}} appears in the [[Battle of Sector 001]] during {{film|8}}, under the command of [[Worf]] ([[Michael Dorn]]), who had become a regular character on DS9 by that time; he also appears in {{film|9}}. Both {{film|9}} and {{film|10}} contain references to the [[Dominion War]] story arc from the series. For {{film|9}}, a scene was written and filmed involving an appearance by [[Armin Shimerman]] as [[Quark]]; this was cut from the film, but a still from it can be found among the extras on the DVD release.
 
* In 1998, Rick Berman commented "''There are a few more movies left in the ''Generations'' franchise and there's a good chance we'll see a ''Deep Space Nine'' film. What we'd like to do is introduce a few of the characters from ''Deep Space'' into the next ''Generations'' movie just to tease audiences.''" [http://www.geos.tv/index.php/news?nid=17&sid=170]
 
* In 1998, Rick Berman commented "''There are a few more movies left in the ''Generations'' franchise and there's a good chance we'll see a ''Deep Space Nine'' film. What we'd like to do is introduce a few of the characters from ''Deep Space'' into the next ''Generations'' movie just to tease audiences.''" [http://www.geos.tv/index.php/news?nid=17&sid=170]
   
 
===''Star Trek: Voyager'' / ''Star Trek: Enterprise''===
 
===''Star Trek: Voyager'' / ''Star Trek: Enterprise''===
* The conclusive endings of both these series likewise indicate little or no probability of future movies being based on them. During the run of ''Voyager'', there was speculation amongst fans (via the internet and other media) that the series would end on a cliff-hanger, to be resolved in a theatrical motion picture, but the ultimate release of {{e|Endgame}} as the series finale proved that idea to be unfounded. The potential for continuation of the series has instead been explored in novels and fan-fiction.
+
* The conclusive endings of both these series likewise indicate little or no probability of future films being based on them. During the run of ''Voyager'', there was speculation amongst fans (via the internet and other media) that the series would end on a cliff-hanger, to be resolved in a theatrical motion picture, but the ultimate release of {{e|Endgame}} as the series finale proved that idea to be unfounded. The potential for continuation of the series has instead been explored in novels and fan-fiction.
* There is a gap of six years between {{e|Terra Prime}} and {{e|These Are the Voyages...}} which could serve as the setting of an ENT movie, although the timeline position of {{film|11}} and its sequel suggests that this would be unlikely.
+
* There is a gap of six years between {{e|Terra Prime}} and {{e|These Are the Voyages...}} which could serve as the setting of an ENT film, although the timeline position of {{film|11}} and its sequel suggests that this would be unlikely.
 
* {{film|10}} features a cameo by [[Kate Mulgrew]], reprising her role as [[Kathryn Janeway]] from ''Voyager'' and thus marking the only direct big-screen appearance of any character from that series. (An [[Emergency Medical Holographic program|EMH Mark I]], played by [[Robert Picardo]], appears briefly in ''First Contact'', but this is not exactly the same character as the Holographic Doctor in the series.)
 
* {{film|10}} features a cameo by [[Kate Mulgrew]], reprising her role as [[Kathryn Janeway]] from ''Voyager'' and thus marking the only direct big-screen appearance of any character from that series. (An [[Emergency Medical Holographic program|EMH Mark I]], played by [[Robert Picardo]], appears briefly in ''First Contact'', but this is not exactly the same character as the Holographic Doctor in the series.)
 
* ''Nemesis'' also features a graphic containing a reference to a {{USS|Archer}}, named after Captain [[Jonathan Archer]], the main character in ''Enterprise''.
 
* ''Nemesis'' also features a graphic containing a reference to a {{USS|Archer}}, named after Captain [[Jonathan Archer]], the main character in ''Enterprise''.
 
* Additionally, "{{film|11}}" features a reference to "Admiral {{alt|Jonathan Archer|Archer}}'s prized [[beagle]]", intended by the writers to be a reference to Jonathan Archer, {{TrekMovie.com|2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/}} and his beagle [[Porthos]].
 
* Additionally, "{{film|11}}" features a reference to "Admiral {{alt|Jonathan Archer|Archer}}'s prized [[beagle]]", intended by the writers to be a reference to Jonathan Archer, {{TrekMovie.com|2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/}} and his beagle [[Porthos]].
* A replica of {{EnterpriseNX}} appears in {{film|12}}, marking the first appearance of any element from that series on the big screen.
+
* A replica of {{EnterpriseNX}} appears in {{film|12}}, marking the first appearance of any element from that series on the big screen. {{film|13}} refers to [[Military Assault Command Operations]] personnel and the [[Xindi]] encounter from ENT's third season, as well as depicting an early Starfleet ship whose design resembles that of the [[NX]] starships seen in ENT.
   
 
==Further reading==
 
==Further reading==
Line 413: Line 414:
 
*[[Star Trek films (Blu-ray)|Blu-ray releases]]
 
*[[Star Trek films (Blu-ray)|Blu-ray releases]]
   
  +
{{DISPLAYTITLE|''Star Trek'' films}}
 
[[de:Star-Trek-Filme]]
 
[[de:Star-Trek-Filme]]
 
[[fr:Star Trek: Films]]
 
[[fr:Star Trek: Films]]

Latest revision as of 13:45, January 10, 2020

Real World article
(written from a Production point of view)
The Motion Picture artwork

This article concerns itself with the general production and performances of the official Star Trek theatrical feature films as produced and distributed by Paramount Pictures, having been the full rights title holder from 1979 (Star Trek: The Motion Picture) through 2002 (Star Trek Nemesis), and as licensee from 2009 (Star Trek) through 2016 (Star Trek Beyond), thereby constituting what is currently known as the "Star Trek film franchise".

Within that franchise a further distinction is often made between the two prime universe film franchises, to wit,

and the third, alternate reality or "Kelvin-timeline", film franchise,

FilmsEdit

As a franchise the Star Trek films were almost conceived as an afterthought in the wake of the stupefying success of the very first, 1977 Star Wars installment. The result of that, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, did nowhere come close to living up to the (too) high expectations of studio executives, who subsequently decided to kill off the fledgling Star Trek film franchise there and then. The highest conglomerate executive though, Gulf+Western owner and CEO Charlie Bluhdorn, saw it differently and personally ordered his Paramount subordinates to pursue the franchise further. Having actually already ordained the original film production in the first place, it was therefore Bluhdorn in person who in effect not only conceived the Star Trek film franchise, but also saved it as a franchise as well (for further particulars, see: main article).

The Original Series films Edit

Films which feature the cast of Star Trek: The Original Series.

Title Film # TOS # Stardate US Release Date Critical Reception[1] Domestic Gross Foreign Gross Worldwide Gross[2] Budget (est) Profitability Gross[3]
Star Trek: The Motion Picture 1 1 7410.2 – 7414.1 1979-12-07 42% $82,258,456 $56,741,544 $139,000,000 $35,000,000[4] 397%
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan 2 2 8130.3 – 8141.6 1982-06-04 87% $78,912,963 $18,087,037 $97,000,000 $11,000,000 882%[5]
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock 3 3 8210.3 1984-06-01 80% $76,471,046 $10,528,954 $87,000,000 $17,000,000 512%
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home 4 4 8390.0 1986-11-26 85% $109,713,132 $23,286,868 $133,000,000 $25,000,000 532%
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier 5 5 8454.1 1989-06-09 22% $52,210,049 $17,999,951 $70,210,000 $27,800,000 253%
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country 6 6 9521.6 – 9529.1. 1991-12-06 81% $74,888,996 $22,000,000 $96,888,996 $30,000,000 323%
TOS Totals 66% (avg) $474,454,642 $148,644,354 $623,098,996 $145,800,000 427% (avg)

The Next Generation films Edit

Films which feature the cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Unlike the preceding TOS films, these did not carry sequel numbers ("Star Trek VII", "Star Trek VIII", "Star Trek IX" or "Star Trek X") except in pre-production. However, the numbers do appear on newer disc covers.

Title Film # TNG # Stardate US Release Date Critical Reception Domestic Gross Foreign Gross Worldwide Gross Budget (est) Profitability Gross
Star Trek Generations 7 1 48632.4 – 48650.1 1994-11-18 47% $75,671,125 $42,400,000 $118,071,125 $35,000,000 337%[6]
Star Trek: First Contact 8 2 50893.5 1996-11-22 93% $92,027,888 $54,000,000 $146,027,888 $45,000,000 324%
Star Trek: Insurrection 9 3 52200 (approx) 1998-12-11 54% $70,187,658 $42,400,000 $112,587,658 $58,000,000 194%
Star Trek Nemesis 10 4 56844.9 2002-12-13 37% $43,254,409 $24,058,417 $67,312,826 $60,000,000 112%
TNG Totals 58% (avg) $281,141,080 $162,858,417 $443,999,497 $198,000,000 224% (avg)

Alternate reality films Edit

Films which feature a different version of the TOS characters portrayed by a new cast, and set in an alternate reality from earlier films and series.

Title Film # AR # Stardate US Release Date Critical Reception Domestic Gross Foreign Gross Worldwide Gross Budget (est) Profitability Gross
Star Trek 11 1 2233.04 – 2258.42 2009-05-08 94% $257,730,019 $127,950,427 $385,680,446 $150,000,000 257%
Star Trek Into Darkness 12 2 2259.55 – 2260.133 2013-05-16 84% $228,778,661 $238,602,923 $467,381,584 $190,000,000 246%
Star Trek Beyond 13 3 2263.02 – 2263.04 2016-07-22 86% $158,848,340 $184,623,476 $343,471,816 $185,000,000 185%
AR Totals 88% (avg) $645,357,020 $551,176,826 $1,196,533,846 $525,000,000 227% (avg)
Footnotes:
  1. Approval rates as calculated by the critical film review website Rotten Tomatoes.
  2. These figures include worldwide box-office takes only. Every other form of revenue, such as for merchandise, home media format sales, rentals, television rights and the like, are excluded from the figures. Revenue and cost figures as submitted by the studio to the film website IMDb
  3. Percentages above 100% indicate profit, below 100%, loss and at 100% means the production exactly recouped its production costs.
  4. In the 1980s and 1990s a figure of approximately $45 million dollar was widely propagated in numerous publications, including those licensed by Paramount Pictures. For a treatment on the apparent discrepancy, please see: The Motion Picture: Costs and revenues.
  5. The profitability of Wrath of Khan is flattered, as that production made use of a substantial amount of special and visual effects assets, such as studio models, props, sets and even complete visual effects sequences produced for the previous film, and which do not show up in its production costs. This also holds true, though to a lesser degree, for the subsequent four films.
  6. Produced back-to-back with its television progenitor and therefore with much of its setup already in place, the profitability of Generations is, like that of The Wrath of Khan, also somewhat flattered, as that production too made use of a substantial amount of special and visual effects assets, such as studio models, costumes, props, and sets produced for the television properties, which do not show up in the budget.

Unrealized Star Trek films Edit

Besides the above referenced films which had eventually seen a theatrical release, Paramount has over the decades embarked on the development of several other Star Trek film projects as well, they however, ultimately abandoned in various stages of development for a variety of reasons. Costs incurred for these unrealized projects were usually charged against the subsequent film project that was realized. (see also: below)

For further particulars on these abandoned film projects, see: Undeveloped Star Trek projects.

SummaryEdit

MA 2009Warning! This section may contain spoilers for Star Trek: Picard.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) reunites the Star Trek: The Original Series cast aboard the original USS Enterprise, refurbished after its five-year mission as documented in the television series. The story was originally conceived as the pilot episode of the aborted Star Trek: Phase II series, in which the now-Admiral Kirk and crew must engage with a powerful, threatening force that is heading directly towards Earth.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984), and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986), together form a loose trilogy beginning with the reintroduction of an old enemy from a popular TOS episode ("Space Seed") who resumes his conflict with Kirk in epic fashion, leading to the creation of the planet Genesis, the death of Spock and his subsequent "burial" on Genesis, the destruction of the Enterprise during Kirk's efforts to reunite Spock's regenerated body with his katra, and ultimately a time-travel adventure to 1986 aboard a captured Klingon vessel (HMS Bounty) in order to save Earth from destruction.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) moves Kirk, demoted back to captain as a result of defying Starfleet orders in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, and crew onto the new USS Enterprise-A, which is hijacked by a renegade Vulcan (Sybok) who pilots it to the center of the galaxy in an attempt to find the source of creation.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) sees Kirk and crew attempting to prevent derailment of the Federation/Klingon peace talks by conspirators from both sides. As well as bringing the TOS cast to its retirement, the film also ties up various threads first established in the series (most notably, the conflict between the Federation and the Klingons) and paves the way for the storylines of Star Trek: The Next Generation, set seventy years later. Produced during the fall of the communist Soviet Union, the film's plot may be regarded as a metaphor for those events and the effect they had on international relations at that time.

Star Trek Generations (1994) brings the cast of TNG to the big screen, set less than a year after the end of the series ("All Good Things...") and filmed straight after the completion of its last episodes. Picard and the crew of the USS Enterprise-D must try to stop a brilliant scientist (Tolian Soran) from committing an act of genocide in order to enter the Nexus, a mysterious hedonistic realm in which time has no meaning. Appearances by three of the TOS cast (Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov) and the heroic death of Kirk who joins Picard by means of the Nexus, served to "pass the torch" from the old generation to the next; the appearance of recurring enemies Lursa and B'Etor and the revelation of their fate provides a key link with the TNG series. The film also includes the destruction of the Enterprise-D.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996) brings back the TNG cast in their first truly independent big screen adventure aboard the new USS Enterprise-E. Picard and his crew are pitted against their deadliest foe from the series, the Borg, who travel back in time to prevent the first warp flight by Zefram Cochrane.

In Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), Picard and crew discover a covert effort by Starfleet, in co-operation with the belligerent Son'a, to relocate the inhabitants of a "fountain of youth" planet. Standing by his morals, Picard must take up arms against the Federation to save paradise.

Star Trek Nemesis (2002) sees Picard and the Enterprise ordered to investigate the sudden fall of the Romulan government, replaced by a leader from their neighboring race, the Remans. The dark secret of this new leader, Shinzon, brings Picard into conflict in a way he never thought possible, and culminates in a fight to save Earth from a terrible weapon – at great cost. With the death of Data and the departure of Riker, Troi, and Beverly Crusher from the Enterprise, this film marked the end of the TNG cast's adventures (until Star Trek: Picard, nearly two decades later). Much as with the (chronological) final big screen appearance of the original cast, which laid the foundations of peace between the Federation and the Klingons, this film implies the establishment of an alliance between the Federation and the Romulans, enemies throughout the TNG era just as the Klingons had been in TOS.

Star Trek (2009) creates a new timeline in the Star Trek franchise, which is tied directly to the prime universe, effecting a return to the TOS era, albeit one populated by an all-new cast of actors. It also features a completely new look, and remains in-universe by explaining all changes as being inadvertently caused by time-traveling Romulan villain Nero. This film focuses on younger versions of James T. Kirk, Spock, and the crew and showcases their very first mission aboard the USS Enterprise as they work together to stop the renegade Nero in his vengeful rampage to destroy Federation planets.

The sequel Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) picks up a year after the first film of the new timeline, where the crew is tested as they are sent to apprehend John Harrison, a traitor and mass murderer, and uncover corruption and a conspiracy to militarize Starfleet from within.

Star Trek Beyond (2016) picks up three years after the second film, where the crew is in the third year of its five-year mission. An encounter with an alien swarm, headed by the mysterious and powerful Krall, has devastating consequences for the Enterprise and crew, and reveals a serious threat to the Federation.

FutureEdit

See: Star Trek XIV.

In a November 2015 Wired article discussing the recent popularity of shared universes on film, Paramount Motion Pictures Group president Marc Evans acknowledged the possibility of spin-off films. He said, "I often think about the areas of the Star Trek universe that haven’t been taken advantage of. Like, I’ll be ridiculous with you, but what would Star Trek: Zero Dark Thirty look like? Where is the SEAL Team Six of the Star Trek universe? That fascinates me." [1]

On April 25, 2018, it was confirmed that two Star Trek films were in development. [2] However, on 10 January 2019, pursuant the dismal profitability performance of Beyond and a little over ten months later, Forbes magazine reported that the fourth, yet untitled, Kelvin-timeline film had been cancelled, which in itself followed in the wake of earlier reports that main performers Chris Pine (James T. Kirk) and Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk) had all already withdrawn their commitments to the project. While not overtly evident at the time, this decision had for all intents and purposes all the hallmarks of the definitive termination of the Kelvin timeline in the Star Trek (film) franchise, [3] and conceivably of the Star Trek film franchise proper as well, for the time being (even though the Quentin Tarantino Star Trek XIV pitch is apparently still on the table, though it has not evolved beyond the consideration stage as of 2019), especially in the light of the film franchise being virtually rendered insignificant by those from the Star Wars and Marvel Comics ones in particular. [4]

The cancellation of the fourth alternate reality film could have serious consequences for Paramount, at least where Star Trek is concerned, as a production license of the kind extended to the studio usually includes a timetable clause in which a franchise-licensed studio is obligated to produce sequential franchise film outings within a preordained time-frame. When defaulting on the clause, the film production rights then automatically reverts to the licensor, in this case CBS Corporation (the franchise owner as of 2006), who is then free to do with it as it wills.

Performance summaryEdit

Domestically, combined and not taking inflation into account, the Star Trek features have grossed a little over US$1,4 billion. Prior to the release of Star Trek, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home had grossed more than the other films, coming in at US$109,713,132, while Star Trek: First Contact had the largest-grossing opening weekend of all the films. The alternate reality Star Trek film surpassed both of these records, but was itself surpassed by its Star Trek Into Darkness sequel. [5]

Using the figures in the above specified tables, a "Top 5" worldwide performance record for the films as of 2016 is summarized in the table below, which hold a few surprises. The costs are, as expected, in accordance with the sequence the films were produced in, with The Motion Picture, being the sole exception due to various reasons. Rather surprising is that the best received films are not always also the highest grossing, The Voyage Home being the most consistent one. However, the biggest surprise in this regard, the bad press the film received in the 1980s and 1990s notwithstanding – among others by the studio itself, who considered the film a failure at the time – is that The Motion Picture as one of the worst received films, is not only the highest grossing Original Crew film world-wide, but concurrently also one of the most profitable films in the franchise.

The table shows that the TNG films were the least successful ones of the franchise in critical and financial terms, First Contact being the sole positive exception – even becoming the highest worldwide grossing Star Trek-prime film – the apparent profitability of Generations (see that film's footnote above) notwithstanding. In terms of gross profitability, the six Original Series films remain to date the most successful ones by far.

However, while there is a correlation between costs and profitability, the real surprise lies in the recent lack of positive correlation between gross revenues and profitability. That Nemesis and Insurrection occupy the first and third place respectively in the worst profitability ranking comes hardly as a surprise, considering their poor performance at the box office. But a break occurred in the correlation with the three alternate reality films, which were the most successful in terms of box office revenues of the franchise by far, but which also rank among the least profitable, even losing, ones – Star Trek Beyond in particular, taking second place in the worst profitability ranking – making it appear that the more successful a film is at the box office, the worse its profitability becomes.

The significant jump in production budget of 29% (over ten times the official inflation rate for the period 1996-1998) between the films First Contact and Insurrection, validated Adam Lebowitz's assertion that the technique of computer-generated imagery (CGI) for producing visual effects, which was used almost exclusively for the latter film and contrary to popular belief, is not cheaper than the traditional way of producing these. "A lot of people say, 'CGI is a lot cheaper, isn't it,' but the way I like to think of it is that CGI is not cheaper necessarily, but you get a lot more for your money and you can tweak it a lot more.", Lebowitz has stated. (Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 1, Issue 6, p. 47) If anything has exemplified Lebowitz's assessment, then it must have been the number of staffers Industrial Light & Magic had employed on their Star Trek projects; whereas The Search for Spock "only" needed 42 staffers, the staff-count for Star Trek (2009) had burgeoned to no less than 315, virtually all of them working as digital specialists.

Star Trek Into Darkness marks the first time that a Star Trek film performed better in the foreign markets than the home market, confirming an industry trend that has started in the early 2000s. [6]

As already stated above, the 2016 film Star Trek Beyond, even though it even surpassed its predecessor critically, performed catastrophically at the box-office (see also below) which became a major consideration for the cancellation in January 2019 of the planned fourth alternate reality film, slated to start production in that year.

Ranking per 2017 Best reception Worst reception Highest worldwide gross Lowest worldwide gross Most costly Least costly Most profitable gross Least profitable gross
1 Star Trek Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Star Trek Into Darkness Star Trek Nemesis Star Trek Into Darkness Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Star Trek Nemesis
2 Star Trek: First Contact Star Trek Nemesis Star Trek Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Star Trek Beyond Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Star Trek Beyond
3 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Star Trek: The Motion Picture Star Trek Beyond Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Star Trek Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Star Trek III: The Search for Spock Star Trek: Insurrection
4 Star Trek Beyond Star Trek Generations Star Trek: First Contact Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Star Trek Nemesis Star Trek V: The Final Frontier Star Trek: The Motion Picture Star Trek Into Darkness
5 Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Star Trek: Insurrection Star Trek: The Motion Picture Star Trek: Insurrection Star Trek: Insurrection Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Star Trek Generations Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Note: When inflation adjusted, a slightly different ranking in costs and revenues might occur, but this has no influence on the profitability ranking as it is a relational calculation of costs and revenues. For the sake of expedience the absolute figures as listed in the above tables are used.

Gross vs net profitabilityEdit

It must be understood that when box-office earnings surpass the direct production budget (thereby achieving gross profitability), it does not automatically mean that a Hollywood studio has gone "into (net) profit", i.e. meaning that the studio has now funding available for investments, dividend disbursements to shareholders and third party investors, executive bonuses, royalties and the like. Aside from the direct production costs, aka the production budget, the studio also needs to cover costs which, for legal as well as practical reasons, can not be directly assigned to a particular motion picture production and which are commonly referred to as "indirect" or "production overhead" costs, in parlance usually abbreviated to "overhead". The most obvious overhead elements consist of,

  • Operations/Management costs: These are incurred in order to maintain a studio, such as the costs for the upkeep of real estate and equipment, as well as the salaries for personnel who have studio tenure, such as executive, accountancy, administrative, technical and marketing staffers. The actual production staffers on any motion picture project, are contracted on a per production basis, and their salaries are therefore directly assignable to the production budget. (see also in this regard: Desilu Studios)
  • Distribution costs: These entail the box office percentages, distributors and theater owners charge the studio for showing their production to the public, in order to operate their own businesses. Since it is never known beforehand how many theaters will agree to show a studio production, these costs are traditionally considered overhead.
  • Marketing/Promotion costs: While the average "Trekkie" might mistakenly believe that any Star Trek live-action production sells itself, this is a viewpoint emphatically not shared by Paramount. In effect, the official standpoint taken by Paramount is to dismiss Trekdom altogether, deeming it too inconsequential, both in scope and in size, to warrant the consideration of any possible Star Trek live-action (both film and television) production development in and of itself. (A Vision of the Future - Star Trek: Voyager, pp. 139-140) Paramount therefore treats each Star Trek production as they would any other, each required to attract a renewed viewership, and each therefore warranting considerable promotional efforts. While a general overall promotion strategy might be devised before the start of a production, the nature and extent is usually fleshed out over the course of the production (if only for the fact that trailers and commercials have to wait for footage to have been actually shot), meaning that cost totals can not be determined with any measure of objectivity beforehand, therefore causing them to be subordinated under overhead for practicality. Traditionally, marketing costs are a substantial part of the overhead, having inflated considerably from the early 2000s onward; David Gerrold has reported that these costs for The Motion Picture were already estimated at US$10-$20 million, accounting for a third to half of over-production budget expenditures alone, which, for those times, was already exceptionally high. (Starlog, issue 30, p. 37)
    To an extent, Paramount's stance has validated itself by the considerable success The Voyage Home, First Contact, and the first two alternate universe films in particular have enjoyed, as these attracted a viewership (though not necessarily new fans) that went well above and beyond traditional Trekdom alone, as was evidenced by their respective outlying box office takes. Even more apparent, but then at the opposite end of the spectrum, became the validity, when Paramount failed to attract renewed viewership for Star Trek Beyond; While the film was in general favorably received by critics and traditional Trekdom alike, the mere fact that others – enjoying a plethora of other alternatives by that time, most notably those of the by then relaunched Star Wars and the ongoing Marvel Comics film franchises – failed to show up at the cinemas, made Beyond at that time the second all-time worst performing Star Trek film for Paramount in terms of profitability, becoming a major consideration for the decision to cancel the fourth alternate universe film in early January 2019, reportedly because of relaunched Star Wars, thereby conceivably cancelling the entire alternate universe story line all together. [7]
  • Sundry aka Unforeseen costs: While largely self-explanatory, these costs can also include actual production costs incurred after principal photography – traditionally seen as the "Production" stage of a film production – has finished, which were not foreseen when the production budget was calculated. For example, its visual effects sequences slated to be entirely produced with CGI, Star Trek: Insurrection was nearing completion in post-production when it was decided that for some key effects sequences the digital technique would not do, and that additional visual effects companies had to be brought in at the last minute to remedy the situation. Traditionally, the production budget is then not adjusted upward in these particular circumstances, with the additional expenditure booked as "unforeseen". Something similar had actually already occurred two decades earlier with The Motion Picture. When the February 1979 visual effects debacle took place after principal photography had wrapped, new effects companies had to be brought in by the studio at the eleventh hour to (re)produce these effects from scratch. In this specific case however, the studio decided to have the additional costs of approximately US$10 million included in its publicly divulged production budget as part of questionable studio politics, explaining the discrepancy between the official production budget listed above, and the widely propagated and best known one of US$45 million. (see: The Motion Picture: Costs and revenues) Reshooting scenes after-the-fact for which principal cast had to be recalled, also fall under this heading, as was the case with Generations and Insurrection.
  • Corporate taxes: Self-explanatory.

The traditional Hollywood rule of thumb of determining the point when a motion picture production becomes net profitable for a studio, has been the application of a multiplier to the direct production budget, or as Gerrold has further explained, "(…)a film has to earn two to three times as much as it costs to make, before it breaks even. Otherwise, you have lost your shirt." (Starlog, issue 30, p. 37) Applying an average multiplier of 2.5 to the above listed figures, or achieving 250% of the production budget in box-office takes, reveal that two of the Star Trek films have barely broke even (unsurprisingly including The Final Frontier, but surprisingly the 2009 blockbuster outing as well), whereas the last two Next Generation films, as well as Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond have actually lost the studio money, substantial losses at that in the cases of Insurrection, Nemesis and Beyond.

One obvious rationale for the lack of profitability of the alternate reality films lies in the circumstance that Paramount had, together with Warner Bros. in a US$60 million deal, partnered up with Bad Robot Productions in 2006 for the development of its motion picture projects, those of Star Trek included. [8] Therefore, in addition to the undisclosed, but undoubtedly hefty license fees Paramount had to pay franchise owner CBS Corporation, all income derived from the box offices takes needed now to be shared with a major co-producer as well, where there had been none before, cutting deeply in the gross profits. The fact that Bad Robot withdrew from the partnership in November 2018, was in effect one of the other major considerations for Paramount to cancel the fourth alternate reality film in January 2019. [9]

As a whole, the four decades old film franchise performance of all thirteen films combined yields the following, showing that the film franchise has been net profitable for the studio, albeit modestly so, mostly because of the alternate reality films as they involved he largest amount of money. When applying the 2.5 multiplier, an approximately 4.2% net return on investment remains, until the 2010s not even enough to cancel out inflation and then easily attainable by just putting your money in a bank savings account. The studio therefore had to mostly rely on revenues stemming from other spin-off franchise elements in all forms and formats, such as television rights and merchandise, in order to show shareholders/investors a more healthy rate of return.

Critical Reception Domestic Gross Foreign Gross Worldwide Gross Budget (est) Profitability Gross
71% (avg) 1,400,952,742 862,679,597 2,263,632,339 868,800,000 261%

It is in this regard that another Paramount production deserves a mention, the 1997 eleven Academy Award winning Titanic, served by such Star Trek alumni as Robert Legato, Don Pennington, James Horner and Tony Meininger. With a worldwide gross of US$2.2 billion – being the very first film in motion picture history to breach the two billion barrier – against a production budget of US$200 million, it did achieve a for the times mind-boggling 1,100% gross profitability. This was especially mind-boggling when the amount of money involved was considered, as that film alone, grossing the same amount as all thirteen Star Trek films combined, netted the studio US$1.7 billion, that is, in theory at least when discounting the below-mentioned "Hollywood accounting" phenomenon. [10] The film stands to this very day out as Paramount's biggest success in its entire history by far, as well as being universally considered as one of the motion picture industry's greatest triumphs for that matter. Like it had with The Motion Picture, the studio had staked its very continued existence on Titanic. (see: The Motion Picture: Costs and revenues)

Still, while the rationale behind the net profitability determining methodology is valid, the methodology itself has proven to be susceptible to figures manipulation, leading up to the infamous "Hollywood accounting" phenomenon, possibly explaining not only the apparent high profitability of The Wrath of Khan and Generations – an absolute rarity where "Hollywood Accounting" is concerned as explained below – but also the recent and apparent lack of profitability of the alternate reality films. It should concurrently be noted that additional revenues, derived from later merchandise, television rights and home media sales, are traditionally discounted by Hollywood studios in their public performance assessments for a film, meaning that even loss generating productions have the potential to turn net profitable in the long run. However, the circumstance that Bad Robot had, through its many subsidiaries, negotiated a substantial say – and thus a part of the revenue stream – in the resultant merchandise, including the home media formats, meant that that potential had for Paramount been considerably diminished as well where the alternate reality films were concerned.

Hollywood accountingEdit

"Hollywood accounting" or "Hollywood bookkeeping" as it is also referred to, is a particularly nefarious phenomenon in the motion picture industry, which entails that, simply put, production stakeholders, such as shareholders, actors, producers, writers, production companies, local governments and the like, who have entered in a net profit sharing agreement with the studio, are essentially "defrauded" as much as possible out of their legally entitled shares by means of untoward bookkeeping methods. These typically entail inflating expenses such as production, distribution and marketing (a very popular one with studios, as these, whether or not justified, have gone truly through the roof from the early 2000s onward), overhead and, most notoriously, the production budget "sundry costs" with as much elements as possible, not rarely utterly undue.

The industry phenomenon is to date deeply ingrained, widespread and pervasive and by no means limited to Paramount Pictures or film productions alone, as Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry did find out to his detriment after he discovered he too was at receiving end of this phenomenon when he signed both his 18 May 1965 Star Trek: The Original Series and 1978 The Motion Picture net profit sharing deals. "The greatest science fiction in show biz is in the accounting", a chagrined Roddenberry declared when he ordered his attorney Leonard Maizlish to start legal proceedings against the studio in 1981. (Starlog, issue 43, p. 14) A particularly notorious instance was for example Lucasfilm, who in 2009 still maintained that their 1983 third Star Wars installment, Return of the Jedi, "has never gone into profit", despite having earned a recorded US$475 million against a production budget of US$32.5 million (constituting a whopping 1,462% gross profitability, but while impressive, involving far less money than the above-mentioned Titanic) by that point, shortchanging several actors who had unwisely entered into a net profit sharing agreement. [11]

Paramount itself got caught in the act when it was successfully sued by screen writer Art Buchwald (thereby succeeding where Maizlish, on behalf of Roddenberry, had seemingly failed seven years earlier) who found himself in a similar predicament in the case of Paramount's 1988 motion picture Coming to America (starring Eddie Murphy), which grossed over ten times its budget of US$39 million. It was actually this case that brought the "Hollywood accounting" phenomenon to the full awareness of the general public. Finding itself highly scrutinized by the media at the time, Paramount was ultimately ordered by the courts to settle for US$900,000 in 1992. [12]

However, as it is still very much a gray area in corporate accounting law, it has, despite the for the industry adverse court ruling, not in the least deterred Paramount, or any other Hollywood studio for that matter, to continue with the practice unabated, to the point where it has become near-pandemic in the 2000s. Several Hollywood reporters have recorded that few, if any, of the biggest box-office successes of the past decades had, as of 2010, actually turned in an official net studio profit, that is, on paper at least. [13] [14] This actually made Hollywood studios one of the very worst properties to invest in, as many shareholders can now attest to. Despite a class-action brought against the entire industry before a Federal Court in 1996 [15], the financial gains apparently still far outweigh the costs of any possible legal litigation. The three alternate universe films, Star Trek, Into Darkness, and Beyond, for example, are officially reported as among the least profitable, even losing, Star Trek productions by Paramount, despite grossing close to US$1.2 billion dollar between the three of them, as specified above.

Stakeholders who still do enter into a profit sharing agreement, have however, learned the lessons of their unfortunate predecessors, and do so on the basis of gross profit (as indeed tax authorities have always done), instead of net profits, as gross profit is determined by only charging directly assignable production costs to the revenues under accounting laws. And indeed, creator Roddenberry himself did not repeat the mistakes he made back in 1965 and 1978, when he signed a profit sharing deal with Paramount in 1986 for Star Trek: The Next Generation, where it was stipulated that he was to receive 35% of the adjusted gross profits derived from the series. [16](X)

Studios countered with transferring as much production unrelated expenditures to the (in)direct production costs as they possibly could get away with legally. Notorious in this respect is the transfer of the substantial executive bonuses, which, rightfully, should be paid from the net profits, to production overhead, from which regular salaries are paid. The even more savvy stakeholders will try to negotiate a gross revenue sharing, aka "box-office take", agreement, but this is, of course, vehemently opposed by Hollywood studios and is only reserved for the few very biggest and most powerful of the Hollywood stars [17], such as Tom Cruise – who successfully reinitialized the Mission: Impossible franchise not only as star, but as co-producing company as well under which he receives his box-office takes [18] – and which Roddenberry was most certainly not.

In regard to the Star Trek films, it is known that Paramount has charged incurred costs for undeveloped film projects against either the production budget, the overhead, or both of subsequent films that were realized, most notably The Motion Picture and The Undiscovered Country. While the act is in itself not illegal, it is a practice not commonly followed in most other industries (the pharmaceutical industry standing out as a notorious exception) and actually debatable from a business economics point of view; research and development costs of projects that do not come to fruition are usually written off and are commonly charged against the balance sheets of corporations. This is a sound generally accepted accounting principle for businesses (as stated in any business economics text book and where the principles are known under their acronym GAAP) as it prevents unwarranted cost price inflation with undue elements – thereby avoiding pollution of pre-production viability assessments – for products that do come to fruition. Paramount's divergent actions therefore can be construed as an instance of Hollywood accounting. The very rare positive – as in inflating the profitability instead of the costs – applications of Hollywood accounting in the cases of The Wrath of Khan and Generations were motivated by internal studio politics. (see also in this regard: The Motion Picture: Costs and revenues)

The 2006 separation of the Star Trek television and film productions under two newly formed independent holding companies, resulting in that Paramount Pictures, now a holding of (new) Viacom, had to pay licensing fees to newly formed CBS Corporation in order to produce subsequent Star Trek (and Mission: Impossible [19]) films, has aggravated the situation. A closely guarded trade secret, the amount of the fees were now a newly added part to the production budget/overhead, which was not there previously, and might partly explain the apparent lack of net profitability of the three alternate universe films. Some critics have surmised that this had been part of the split considerations all along, somewhat supported by the fact that both new entities have remained under the ultimate ownership and control of holding conglomerate National Amusementsand to an extent implicitly conceded as such in actuality by its CEO and owner Sumner Redstone, who had expressed his desire to "unlock value" by boosting stock value and earning potential of the at the time faster growing soon-to-be "new" Viacom. [20] [21]

Cast and crew listingsEdit

Background information Edit

The odd number / even number phenomenonEdit

  • A number of Star Trek fans have expressed the opinion that the even-numbered films are generally better than the odd-numbered ones. Such an appraisal is obviously subjective, but it has its roots in a number of factors. The even-numbered films (apart from Star Trek Nemesis) have enjoyed relatively greater success at the box office and higher critical acclaim, as opposed to various lukewarm reviews received by the odd-numbered films (with the exception of Star Trek). Fans and critics have also noted that, in their opinions, the even-numbered films are better paced and more action-packed, with more memorable story lines, eminently quotable scripts and exciting special effects. (The first two films are often held up as examples of this trend from the outset of the series: Star Trek: The Motion Picture has very few battle or dramatic action sequences, presenting Kirk and crew with a mostly cerebral challenge, while Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is dominated by epic conflict, resulting in several battle sequences and heavy damage to the Enterprise and its crew.)
  • By the time the TNG films were being produced, the "odd/even" phenomenon was effectively regarded as a curse, with members of the production crew fearing that, despite their best efforts, future odd-numbered productions were fated to be less successful than even-numbered ones. Jonathan Frakes, when interviewed by Star Trek Monthly(citation needededit) during pre-production for Star Trek: Insurrection, commented that he was looking forward to directing his second film "even though it's an odd-numbered Star Trek." In 2002, however, the phenomenon was broken by the release of Star Trek Nemesis, which experienced the lowest box-office takings of any Star Trek film to date and was poorly received by even long-standing fans. (Though to a few, this became an even further joke – a Star Trek film which was a multiple of five was cursed to fail catastrophically, as Nemesis pulled in poor reviews and revenue in a similar fashion to The Final Frontier.)
  • The phenomenon has seemingly been broken further by the critical success of Star Trek, which has obtained a 95% on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, as well as an opening weekend gross of nearly twice the full run of Star Trek Nemesis. [23]
  • In a 1999 episode of the British sitcom Spaced, the phenomenon was mentioned by the series' lead character, Tim Bisley, who was played by Simon Pegg – an irony not lost on Pegg during and after his work on Star Trek.

Star Trek: Deep Space NineEdit

  • Whereas the preceding live-action television series had open endings that allowed for continuation into motion picture format, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ended quite firmly and conclusively, with all its various plotlines resolved and the departure of various main characters. Any subsequent film would therefore have required a significantly different premise and different casting, departing radically from the series' format which had been so familiar to its fan base. On the possibility of a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine film ever happening, Ira Steven Behr commented: "I don't think so. I think we could do a pretty kick-ass Deep Space Nine film, but not even in my wildest imaginations do I consider it". He also commented "The only Trek I think about is Deep Space Nine, to be honest. If they did a Deep Space Nine film, I certainly would like to be involved if that ever happened, which I doubt". [24]
  • After the release of Star Trek: Insurrection, Patrick Stewart commented, "I think we should pass the mantle on to the Deep Space Nine characters. We don't want to become The Rolling Stones of the Star Trek films". [25] [26]
  • Andrew Robinson commented "My feeling is that there is never going to be a Deep Space Nine film, they still have more to go with The Next Generation. I think it ("What You Leave Behind") was really the right way to end the series. [27]
  • A campaign for a Deep Space Nine film (or a miniseries) was launched in 2000 by fans Stacy Powell and Doug Wilson. Nana Visitor was thrilled to hear of the existence of the campaign and J.G. Hertzler and David B. Levinson joked with fans to "take one of these [flyers], don't throw it away or I'll come after you." [28] [29]
  • Fans Terry Harris and Gisele La Roche also launched a petition for a Deep Space Nine film, receiving several positive responses from actors. [30](X)
  • Notwithstanding the foregoing, elements from the series have appeared in all TNG films. The Enterprise-D crew wore the uniforms which had been introduced on Deep Space Nine (in addition to their own series' uniforms) in Star Trek Generations; the uniforms were also used on Star Trek: Voyager, which premiered several months after the film's release. The USS Defiant appears in the Battle of Sector 001 during Star Trek: First Contact, under the command of Worf (Michael Dorn), who had become a regular character on DS9 by that time; he also appears in Star Trek: Insurrection. Both Star Trek: Insurrection and Star Trek Nemesis contain references to the Dominion War story arc from the series. For Star Trek: Insurrection, a scene was written and filmed involving an appearance by Armin Shimerman as Quark; this was cut from the film, but a still from it can be found among the extras on the DVD release.
  • In 1998, Rick Berman commented "There are a few more movies left in the Generations franchise and there's a good chance we'll see a Deep Space Nine film. What we'd like to do is introduce a few of the characters from Deep Space into the next Generations movie just to tease audiences." [31]

Star Trek: Voyager / Star Trek: EnterpriseEdit

  • The conclusive endings of both these series likewise indicate little or no probability of future films being based on them. During the run of Voyager, there was speculation amongst fans (via the internet and other media) that the series would end on a cliff-hanger, to be resolved in a theatrical motion picture, but the ultimate release of "Endgame" as the series finale proved that idea to be unfounded. The potential for continuation of the series has instead been explored in novels and fan-fiction.
  • There is a gap of six years between "Terra Prime" and "These Are the Voyages..." which could serve as the setting of an ENT film, although the timeline position of Star Trek and its sequel suggests that this would be unlikely.
  • Star Trek Nemesis features a cameo by Kate Mulgrew, reprising her role as Kathryn Janeway from Voyager and thus marking the only direct big-screen appearance of any character from that series. (An EMH Mark I, played by Robert Picardo, appears briefly in First Contact, but this is not exactly the same character as the Holographic Doctor in the series.)
  • Nemesis also features a graphic containing a reference to a USS Archer, named after Captain Jonathan Archer, the main character in Enterprise.
  • Additionally, "Star Trek" features a reference to "Admiral Archer's prized beagle", intended by the writers to be a reference to Jonathan Archer, [32] and his beagle Porthos.
  • A replica of Enterprise NX-01 appears in Star Trek Into Darkness, marking the first appearance of any element from that series on the big screen. Star Trek Beyond refers to Military Assault Command Operations personnel and the Xindi encounter from ENT's third season, as well as depicting an early Starfleet ship whose design resembles that of the NX starships seen in ENT.

Further readingEdit

See alsoEdit

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.