STAR TREK's Simon Pegg Doesn't Believe We'll See A Fourth Film; "[They] Don't Make Marvel Money"

@TheUnworthyThor - But even if they made the first one for $25M less like you are suggesting, it still only made $385M. I mean that's $20M more than Shazam, but Shazam also only cost $100M.

For Paramount to still believe it's worth the time to make these films with a capped box office between $350-$450M then they need to drop the budget into the $70-$80M range, otherwise it really isn't worth the hassle and they should just stick to tv.

@TheUnworthyThor - I never said they would stop making Star Trek films, only that on a $125M (as you suggested) or higher budget would not make sense.

Also yes I believe this IP has shown to be capped in the high $400M range $500M max as not a single Trek film has reached higher than that. How do you grow a 40 year old franchise (in film years) that has not grown past that point so far? Most of the core Trek fans are getting old and dying off and the youth hasn't shown enough interest as they primarily only go to the movies to see big blockbusters and mid tier films they generally watch at home via streaming. You are either a big blockbuster or a super cheap horror film making bank in theaters these days, with the few exceptions. Yes $80M is indeed miles beyond a network tv budget, but streaming has changed expectations with shows like GOT, Mandalorian, and the upcoming Marvel shows costing upwards of $100-$150M.

To me they should really make it their streaming go to, and yes I know Paramount has few large IPs but can you really consider this one of them anymore when the films have never made truly substantial and sustainable profit?

@TheUnworthyThor - "They grow it like any other franchise does by creating new fans. Like Marvel does. Like Star Wars does. Like Lord of the Rings does. Like James Bond does."

Not all IPs are created equal, Marvel and Star Wars have limitless potential because of the vastness of their universes and follow able characters. Bond resets every 8-10 years with a new actor which keeps it fresh and gives it built in tradition. The Lord of the Rings franchise is done, they told the story and the prequel tales and now there is nothing to make film wise until they completely reboot. Trek is in the same boat it's based on one thing, the crew of a ship and their diplomatic adventures and that's it. There is now other draw besides that unlike Marvel and Star Wars, Trek is very limited imo.

The Mission Impossible films are built on the back of one man, if Cruise leaves then that franchise will flounder. Probably the biggest draw to it nowadays is people want to see what dangerous stunt Tom is willing to do now. To me using that as an example does not check out.

"Never made substantial profit? I assume you mean the last three movies because obviously some of the older Star Trek movies were among the highest grossing movies of their years."

The widest margin of budget to box office of any Trek film was The Voyage Home with a budget of $24M and a box office of $133M. These numbers speak to my point that they need to greatly reduced the budget as opposed to your proposition of $125M. If JJ's films cost between $75-$85M with the same returns they would have already made a fourth film by now, but anything over $100M is a significant risk because like Simon said they have yet to show $500M+ box office potential.

It just is what it is, I'm not saying they will stop or should stop making films, but they have to reduce the budgets or it's not worth the time.