Leonard Nimoy joined the Mission Impossible cast for a year after Star Trek's demise.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Trekcheck: Another Impossible Mission?
by William S. Kowinski
Forty years ago a fledging “studio” formed mostly to do something with the gobs of money flowing from the most successful sitcom in television history to that point, was preparing two new drama TV series, both decidedly offbeat. One was called Star Trek (which, legend has it, Lucille Ball believed would be about the travels of celebrities) and the other was Mission Impossible.
One of them became a hit, and then was forgotten for decades. The other failed, and became a legend. The hit was Mission Impossible, and as it prospered, Star Trek’s budgets faded. The two series were filmed next door to each other, and by Star Trek’s third season, its staff was scavenging the Mission Impossible dumpster for props and material to glue together to make alien cities and starship technology. When Star Trek was finally cancelled, one of its stars got a new job immediately—on Mission Impossible.
Forty years later, the fates of the story universes these two shows spawned are again strangely related. (That actually may have begun with the second Mission Impossible movie, its story written by Ronald Moore and Brian Braga, veteran writers and producers for Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent series’, and writers for a couple of Trek features.)
For when it was announced that the man in charge of the next Star Trek movie was J.J. Abrams, whose first feature as a director was the as yet to be released Mission Impossible III, the fate of Star Trek became linked directly to the fate of the latest Mission Impossible sequel.
by William S. Kowinski
Forty years ago a fledging “studio” formed mostly to do something with the gobs of money flowing from the most successful sitcom in television history to that point, was preparing two new drama TV series, both decidedly offbeat. One was called Star Trek (which, legend has it, Lucille Ball believed would be about the travels of celebrities) and the other was Mission Impossible.
One of them became a hit, and then was forgotten for decades. The other failed, and became a legend. The hit was Mission Impossible, and as it prospered, Star Trek’s budgets faded. The two series were filmed next door to each other, and by Star Trek’s third season, its staff was scavenging the Mission Impossible dumpster for props and material to glue together to make alien cities and starship technology. When Star Trek was finally cancelled, one of its stars got a new job immediately—on Mission Impossible.
Forty years later, the fates of the story universes these two shows spawned are again strangely related. (That actually may have begun with the second Mission Impossible movie, its story written by Ronald Moore and Brian Braga, veteran writers and producers for Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent series’, and writers for a couple of Trek features.)
For when it was announced that the man in charge of the next Star Trek movie was J.J. Abrams, whose first feature as a director was the as yet to be released Mission Impossible III, the fate of Star Trek became linked directly to the fate of the latest Mission Impossible sequel.
Now MI3 has been in theatres for several weeks, and the buzz has been that it did not live up to box office expectations. Some stories, such as this one at Fox News, suggest the failure to match opening weekend expectations, and its subsequent fall-off, has induced nothing less than panic at Paramount, leading perhaps to people losing their jobs.
Other stories suggest it’s not that bad---that Paramount came close enough, and that overseas ticket sales were strong enough. Moreover, so far nobody seems to be blaming Abrams. Most fault the off-screen antics and perhaps fading box office appeal of Tom Cruise, star of all three MI features. Reviewers tended to praise the story and storytelling.
But Star Trek fans will recall the rationalizations of the disappointing opening weekend of Star Trek Nemesis, while by now the film is firmly reputed a commercial failure. While MI3 managed to stay #1 against the release of the woeful “Poisedon,” it is currently being blown out of the water by the release of X-Men 3, featuring the star of the failed previous Trek film, Patrick Stewart.
Outside of Washington, Hollywood is the prime place where perception becomes reality, however unjustified by the facts. If MI3 comes to be viewed as a commercial failure, especially within Paramount, how much money it actually makes won’t matter.
The fate of MI3 can influence the fate of Star Trek XI in several ways, but most of them wind up involving budget. Will Paramount express its confidence in Abrams and his team with the budget to do a bigger Trek film than any so far, except perhaps the first? Or is it so bad that Paramount now can’t afford such a gamble?
So did they hire a hot producer-director to do the kind of very calculated, limited budget Trek movies that previous Trek directors and producers had to make? Are they hoping he’s used to television budgets, and hasn’t been spoiled by the major money spent on MI3?
Other stories suggest it’s not that bad---that Paramount came close enough, and that overseas ticket sales were strong enough. Moreover, so far nobody seems to be blaming Abrams. Most fault the off-screen antics and perhaps fading box office appeal of Tom Cruise, star of all three MI features. Reviewers tended to praise the story and storytelling.
But Star Trek fans will recall the rationalizations of the disappointing opening weekend of Star Trek Nemesis, while by now the film is firmly reputed a commercial failure. While MI3 managed to stay #1 against the release of the woeful “Poisedon,” it is currently being blown out of the water by the release of X-Men 3, featuring the star of the failed previous Trek film, Patrick Stewart.
Outside of Washington, Hollywood is the prime place where perception becomes reality, however unjustified by the facts. If MI3 comes to be viewed as a commercial failure, especially within Paramount, how much money it actually makes won’t matter.
The fate of MI3 can influence the fate of Star Trek XI in several ways, but most of them wind up involving budget. Will Paramount express its confidence in Abrams and his team with the budget to do a bigger Trek film than any so far, except perhaps the first? Or is it so bad that Paramount now can’t afford such a gamble?
So did they hire a hot producer-director to do the kind of very calculated, limited budget Trek movies that previous Trek directors and producers had to make? Are they hoping he’s used to television budgets, and hasn’t been spoiled by the major money spent on MI3?
However this goes, it seems likely that the reception for MI3 has made Paramount execs a little more nervous, a little less confident, a little shakier than they might have been if it had been an unqualified hit. They can’t fail to notice that a box office record was set by a film released two weeks later ( The Da Vinci Code), a record itself broken by X-Men3. (Was there a lack of confidence already, since Paramount chose not to release MI3 on a holiday weekend, when it might go head to head with one of these blockbusters?) Even before X-Men3, MI3 had fallen behind an animated feature (with a character voiced by William Shatner---will the ironies never stop?)
It would be natural under the circumstances for Paramount to be reluctant to take chances they might have otherwise taken. While it’s pretty certain that we won’t see Tom Cruise in Star Trek XI, the perceived weakness of MI3 may have also done in Ben Affleck, if indeed he was ever in the running for a role. It’s unlikely they’ll take a chance on an actor whose previous action role (as Daredevil) was itself a perceived flop. Tobey McGuire, on the other hand, they might die for. (Star Trek does have this advantage: a lot of actors are fans.)
Casting is a big part of budgets these days, and how this film is cast may signal what Paramount is willing to spend. Assuming this is still a young Kirk and Spock at Starfleet Academy story (and recent shying away from the first press release by Abrams and others haven’t really denied this), then the star power is likely to come from actors playing the older parts: officers, teachers, mentors, etc. Though Abrams might like to field a cast of young unknowns, TV-style, this rarely works in movies, especially of this kind.
A lot will unfold in the coming months, but for now it seems like an odd kind of déjà vu in Star Trek’s 40th anniversary year: once again, Mission Impossible may be affecting Star Trek budgets, in a downward direction.
It would be natural under the circumstances for Paramount to be reluctant to take chances they might have otherwise taken. While it’s pretty certain that we won’t see Tom Cruise in Star Trek XI, the perceived weakness of MI3 may have also done in Ben Affleck, if indeed he was ever in the running for a role. It’s unlikely they’ll take a chance on an actor whose previous action role (as Daredevil) was itself a perceived flop. Tobey McGuire, on the other hand, they might die for. (Star Trek does have this advantage: a lot of actors are fans.)
Casting is a big part of budgets these days, and how this film is cast may signal what Paramount is willing to spend. Assuming this is still a young Kirk and Spock at Starfleet Academy story (and recent shying away from the first press release by Abrams and others haven’t really denied this), then the star power is likely to come from actors playing the older parts: officers, teachers, mentors, etc. Though Abrams might like to field a cast of young unknowns, TV-style, this rarely works in movies, especially of this kind.
A lot will unfold in the coming months, but for now it seems like an odd kind of déjà vu in Star Trek’s 40th anniversary year: once again, Mission Impossible may be affecting Star Trek budgets, in a downward direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)