There are three reasons why there might not be a fourth Star Trek film in the Kelvin timeline.
With news of the fourth Star Trek film being in a perpetual state of uncertainty, it seems almost like the Kelvin era of Star Trek films as we have known them has come to an end. After four years, it seems almost likely that if the studio had any faith in a fourth film, or even the Quentin Tarantino film, that they would’ve put something in motion by now.
A fourth film in the Kelvin timeline may never happen. It may also mark the end of the era of Star Trek being a tent-pole film franchise as well.
Sure there might be some streaming films made for the forthcoming Paramount+, the soon-to-be-replacement for CBS All Access. Of course, there’s also the Paramount Movie Network, which will feature TV films aimed at providing original content for the network. Since Star Trek is part of the Paramount/ViacomCBS family, that seems like a possibility that films end up there as well.
That’s not to say that this is a certainty. Obviously with the film industry in a state of flux and there being no real clue as to what’s coming down the line for the future of cinematic theater experiences, it’s impossible to say. Yet, with the closure of Regal Cinemas here in the state due to James Bond’s No Time To Die being delayed, there stands a chance that theaters may never rebound. After all, who wants to pay $20 for popcorn and pop, on top of a rising ticket cost? Only to deal with loud jerks in the theater and sticky floors that never stop being sticky…
Watching movies at home, especially movies you can pause when needed, just make so much sense. That’s why these are three reasons why we may have seen the last Star Trek film in the theaters.
A focus on streaming/television
There’s no doubt that the parent company of not only Star Trek, but Paramount Studios, ViacomCBS, has a desire to emphasize the upcoming re-launch of CBS All Access as Paramount+. The new streaming service will incorporate the content on CBS All Access, namely Star Trek and the Twilight Zone (if it gets more seasons), as well as Viacom-owned properties like Spongebob Squarepants, Yellowstone, and other series like Bar Rescue.
That means if there are any new Star Trek films, they’ll likely follow in the format of other straight-to-service movies, like how Psych’s second film was released on Peacock. This would be a way to lower cost, cut out the distribution middle man, and focus on getting the property out as fast as possible. All while not worrying as much about release dates and competition.
That also means that larger, bigger budget versions of Star Trek would take a back seat to more stripped-down versions. If an episode of Star Trek: Discovery/Picard costs around $8.5 million to make, it’s likely that the film version on the streaming service may cost, at most, $16 million or so. This means those big-name actors fans have known in the Kelvin timeline would not be reprising their roles.
It also means that the focus would shift from the Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto led films, to possibly seeing Star Trek streaming actors, like Sonequa Martin-Green and Doug Jones getting the call-up, so to speak. It would be in line with typical streaming trends. If Hollywood is anything, it’s unoriginal. So this would obviously be something they’d consider.
Over-saturation
When Zachary Quinto spoke about Star Trek over-saturation, he was speaking about something fans have been noticing for some time. There is just too dang much Star Trek on at once time. Not counting anything that’s speculated on, there are six series. Four are airing now, with another two in production. That’s too much Star Trek. Even the most die-heart Star Trek fan could have a problem keeping up with that much content.
Look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It went from every film being this big deal and fan experience that they had to attend. That was possible with just six films being released in four years for Phase 1. Then they upped the ante to 11 films in dour years during Phase 3. Now, there’s really no desire for any more MCU films, so they’re going to take C-list characters and make them into Disney+ exclusive content.
Same thing with the Arrowverse. At first, fans were beyond excited about the possibility of the Flash joining the network. Then Supergirl, Legends of Tomorrow, Batwoman, and more started joining. Then the crossovers started to happen and those became the only episodes worth watching anymore. Then Arrow ended and took down half the television series with it. Supergirl’s done, Batwoman won’t see a season three at this rate, and by the end of 2022, the only shows that may be left is the awfully named Superman and Lois and the very-charming Stargirl series.
Oversaturation comes for every franchise eventually and no amount of fans screaming “I love Star Trek, the more the merrier” will change the fact that the human experience is powered by variety. When you’re given something too often, it loses its luster. That’s just the fact. Even someone as big into comics and sci-fi as this writer even has to admit that too much of something kills an interest.
The addition of a film franchise ontop of six series seems like overkill and fans will be mostly turned off by another new thing they have to keep up with.
Movie theaters shutting down
With the news that Regal Cinema is shutting down, potentially for good, the focus on modern film making won’t be for movie theaters anymore, but for streaming platforms. Since streaming platforms are largely a money sucker, films won’t be given the same budget most of the time. That means more budget-based series-to-film adaptations will become more and more common. If a studio can’t make back its money and then some, they won’t invest huge gobs of cash into making a film anymore.
Why would Paramount greenlight a $200 million Star Trek film when the streaming service is on has less than eight million subscribers? For the sake of argument, sure, you’ll make close to a billion dollars if you have eight million people subscribed for twelve months; if they’re all paying the $9.99 tier. Yet, streaming services cost a lot of money to keep going. Then you have to realize near billion dollars will have to be made to work for not just Star Trek but for every other series, you have on your service. If you greenlight one Star Trek film, that just cost you nearly 30% of your expected earnings
Then you have three Star Trek shows that cost about $8.5 million an episode. That and the film is 45% of your earnings right there. That doesn’t factor any other original programming for the service, advertisement, the animated Star Trek series, or the price that it costs per month to operate the streaming service. If you think a streaming service is going to throw 50% of its yearly income at one property, you’re sorely mistaken.
That’s if ViacomCBS had eight million subscribers for All Access. Which it doesn’t. So you can’t justify the huge price for Star Trek films without having theaters in placet to distribute them. If you can’t distribute the films via theater, is there even a point in doing a big-budget film? If you can’t do a big-budget Star Trek film, what’s the point in doing a Trek film in the first place?