Blade Runner 2049 turned a profit though (albeit a small one that scarcely allowed execs to retire on), and anyone who seriously believed the film might be a giant blockbuster hit was ... foolish, to be charitable. It was a wonder Villeneuve managed to blag $150 million from the studio in the first place, just so he could make a sequel to a niche, cult film from 1982 (and let's be honest here, it has always remained thus, despite its sky-high reputation).
If the metric of discussion is that a new Trek film needs to compete in the stratosphere with all the other blockbuster behemoths - then Trek will always fail, and this was my argument a few posts back.
There's plenty of scope & room for intelligent, mid-budget sci-fi to exist in the mainstream; hell, the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise proves that even medium budgeted blockbusters can compete handsomely - if treated with a modicum of care, and respects the audiences' intelligence. Just off the top of my head there are films such as Arrival, Annihilation, Ex Machina, Edge of Tomorrow, The Martian, Under the Skin (though I personally didn't like this film), Looper, District 9, Moon, Snowpiercer - all proving that there's space for 'intelligence' in successful sci-fi.
Paramount just need some balls to admit that Trek is NOT blockbuster fodder and retrofit the franchise to suit.
Last edited by pixelburp; 09-04-2018 at 12:06.