Fourth ‘Star Trek’ Movie Announced with Chris Pine, Chris Hemsworth

'Star Trek 4' to Co-Star Chris
Courtesy of Paramount

Paramount Pictures, Skydance and Bad Robot have announced a fourth film in the rebooted  “Star Trek” series, starring Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth.

The studio made the announcement Monday, four days before it launches “Star Trek Beyond,” disclosing that Pine’s Captain Kirk will cross paths with his father, described as “a man he never had a chance to meet, but whose legacy has haunted him since the day he was born.”

Hemsworth, who appeared in 2009’s “Star Trek,” will return to the space saga in the father role as George Kirk. The remaining cast — which includes Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho and Simon Pegg — is expected to return.

The late Anton Yelchin, who died June 19, had played the Chekov character in the three reboots.

J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay will write the screenplay. J.J. Abrams and Lindsey Weber will produce through Bad Robot Productions. David Ellison and Dana Goldberg of Skydance will executive produce.

The announcement did not indicate who will direct. Justin Lin directed “Star Trek Beyond” from a script by Doug Jung and Simon Pegg.

“Star Trek” grossed $380 million worldwide in 2009 and “Star Trek: Into Darkness” earned $460 million worldwide. “Star Trek Beyond” — the 13th film in the series dating back to 1979’s “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” — will make its premiere at Comic-Con on Wednesday in San Diego.

Hemsworth is currently starring in “Ghostbusters” alongside Melissa McCarthy, Kristin Wiig and Kate McKinnon, and filming “Thor: Ragnorak” and “Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1” back to back. He is repped by CAA and ROAR.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 51

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Love You to the Stars and Back Full Movie

    WATCH NOW >>>

  2. Tim Wilkins says:

    If Anton Yelchin whom played Chekov had died back in June I wonder if he will be replaced? Also by whom? I am curious to see the outcome…

  3. Looking forward to number 4 Star Trek. Loved the three already made.

  4. ST Fan says:

    Bet the story line will have the guardian from the ‘city on the edge of forever’.

  5. CB says:

    So rumor is that Chekov’s character will not be recast. How exactly do they plan to continue the franchise without recasting him?? That’s what I’d like to know.

    • therealeverton says:

      Pretty easy really.. He’s transferred or K.I.A. If he’s on a 5 year mission in “the other direction, they wouldn’t see him. If he died, heroically, on a mission they get another tribute to Anton.

      I understand not recasting and I support it.

  6. Harry Wild says:

    I am looking forward towards a ST movie with some long drawn out starship battles in it! CGI have come along way since The Borg battles were the last that I recall! More starships – Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Dominian, Gorlain, etc…

    • therealeverton says:

      Hmm A little Deep Space 9 on the big screen (series 4 – 7 especially.) They had some amazing, 3 dimensional fleet combat and starship combat on that show. Station defence was well done too.

  7. Paul P. says:

    Testing… where did my comment go??

  8. All I needed to see was Chris Hemsworth. I’m fine with this. :-)

  9. Jenifer Banz says:

    Excited for a new TREK. J.D. and Patrick are a great team to write this.!! Awesome.

  10. ifirefly says:

    Looking forward to finally seeing a Payne/McKay screenplay on the big screen. Those two breathe Star Trek.

  11. jgk says:

    So is Hemsworth playing Captain Kirk? How are they gonna pull that off?

    Why the heck can’t they just tell a solid original Trek story?

    • therealeverton says:

      They can, they have and what tells you this won’t be one? Based on one par of a story you don’t know. Not to mention that many cite Star Trek 2 as the best Trek film, was it original? In some ways not at all, a double sequel of sorts for starters right?

      • therealeverton says:

        The current films don’t have numbers. Of Course I’m on about Wrath of Khan. (You’ll find a LOT of people like Into Darkness a LOT though, more people like it a little too.) But yes Wrath of Khan 100%

      • Paul P. says:

        By Star Trek 2, you mean The Wrath of Kahn, right..? Definitely one of the best of the ST movies. If you mean Into Darkness (2013), no one cites that as the best Star Trek movie! Average at best, minus one letter grade for being a lame remake.

  12. Jj Breen says:

    This is sad. I’m sorry – but “Into Darkness”, – aka – “The Wrath of Khan”, just made me seriously sad. I mean, they even used some of the original script/plot, but simply reversed the actors who said them.

    So now, we have “Dad” come “back” and watch, it will be similar to: “Generations” and a spin on the “Nexus” from that show.

    We will also have LOTS and LOTS of lens flares too. :P

    • candorville says:

      Dad doesn’t have to “come back” in any convoluted Nexus type way. We never saw him die in the first place. The Romulans could’ve beamed him off his ship as it was exploding. We know from deleted scenes and from the comics written by Orci and Kurtzman that the Romulans were then captured by the Klingons and spent 20 years on a klingon prison planet. If they did beam Kirk’s dad off that ship, Kirk’s dad is probably still in that Klingon prison. Which means at heart, the next film may be a prison break film.

  13. Mr Bohemian says:

    CBS Paramount should work with the Axanar people to make a film people would like to see. After all the people who gave money to produce it should be proof of concept

    • millerfilm says:

      I don’t understand why Paramount/CBS doesn’t just partner with larger fan productions like “Axanar,” so that those productions can get access to the copywritten materials they need, and Paramount/CBS can get compensated for those productions using the studios’ copywritten materials.

      • That's What She says:

        You’d think that greed alone should rule Hollywood, but sadly, ego is also a constant in that universe as well. Nothing satisfies a suit more than to make money for something AND to claim responsibility for meaningless clout.

  14. Anthony Nonymous says:

    Kirks Sr and Jr must meet, to correct the time-warp that caused Donald Trump

    • millerfilm says:

      And, Billary!

      • Paul P. says:

        There will never be another great Star Trek movie because there’s too much invested in producing each one now. They could do a spin-off of Contagion, Darmok, Yesterday’s Enterprise, The Chase, Q-Who, Where No Man Has Gone Before, The Doomsday Machine, Devil in the Dark, or a number of others, and have a *great* movie. But the committee of fat old producers with business degrees have no imagination and don’t want to take any risk, so instead you get junk like ST2, a lame remake of the Kahn episode. Omg.

  15. Lex says:

    It will only work if there’s whales in it.

    • jgfox39 says:

      Understand your concern, but the Star Trek reboot is magnificent. It cut out all the old flotsam and jetsam of a thousand characters and plots by putting it in an alternate Universe.

      I think the reboot movies are closer to the original character and quality of the first 2 seasons of Star Trek than all the spin-offs. I can remember the impact of the original series and these have been worthy successors.

      Course heading, Captain?”

      “…Second star to the right — and straight on ’til morning.”

    • That's What She says:

      … and colorful metaphors.

    • millerfilm says:

      And, a wayward NASA space probe, and the alien-posing-as-God entity, and… ;-)

  16. Mikeylito says:

    Watch the TNG episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise.”

    • therealeverton says:

      No idea how many times I’ve sen that episode. Funny enough I watched it again this very day.

      Great epsiode and series 3 of TNG was pure class.

  17. Eve says:

    I hope this doesn’t mean a double dose of daddy issues for the younger Kirk, but that’s probably exactly what it means. Never thought I’d see the day I wasn’t looking forward to Hemsworth in something.

  18. therealeverton says:

    Well I liked Hemsworth’s Kirk, so assuming they have a good story to tell (hopefully it’s Pegg) then this is good news….Assuming…

    • millerfilm says:

      Pegg isn’t scripting. In the article: “J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay will write the screenplay.”

      • therealeverton says:

        @ JR says:

        Well your comments suggest you haven’t watched the show as carefully as you may think. I fell in love with Star Trek when I was about 3 years old. Spock was NEVER, except in the mind of some viewers, any ONE thing. He had, at te LEAST, a duel nature he argued with all the time. We meet a fairly “old” and mature Spock who knows what he is trying to do, mostly. But we originally see a Spock who is very emotional and who flirts, specifically with UHURA.. Then there’s the fact that Spock in these films says “whatever our lives might have been…”. So the influences on him are different. So the Spock that decides NOt to date humans, as his father did (in yet ANOTHER example of how their relationship is nothing odd) or to break up with Uhiura (for all we know.) that Spock is different. But they are still also Spock in essence.

        More to the point when you say “Pon Farr time” you suggest you’re one of those people who fundamentally misunderstands what Pon Farr actually s. Spock can do what he wants and in early iterations it was strongly hinted that he may, do so.

        I canna change the laws of physics Notwithstanding the standard Star Trek messing with whaat know of science anyway, what are you talking about here at all hmmm?

        “( the Enterprise is destroyed yet again but Kirk apparently made sure he brings his bike with him while escaping)”

        Well this is just embarrassing. What on Earth makes you assuming the bikes are from the Enterprise? You have paid zero attention to the trailer(s) as well it seems. They are on a planet with an unknown number of other species who have also been “trapped” there over an unknown amount of time. A ship’s graveyard if you will. So why must the bikes be from The Enterprise? Why MUST thy be from any ship and not have been made on planet? As well as that the ship crashes in pieces, so why must it have been (and its contents) completely destroyed with no salvageable goods at all? Oh and Kirk’s Enterprise was destroyed all of ONE time. Just the One in Star Trek 3..

      • JR says:

        @realeverton… while it’s too early for me to say for sure, I have to disagree with some of your points. Spock, for instance was not hooking up with anyone, unless forced to by alien spores or it was Pon Farr time. In fact he usually looked upon such things with disdain or at least consider them trivial. He would never have spent years making out with Uhura. That is not who the character is. Any more than mr. Sulu was gay ( and that comes from the gay actor who portrayed the character for decades). It also would appear that the director has ignored one of Scotty’s lines from the original series…”I canna change the laws of physics.” I’m sure that some of the banter between the characters is closer to the original series than the last two films were, which may be why some think it feels closer to the previous show. Retroconning established characters and flying motorcycles ( the Enterprise is destroyed yet again but Kirk apparently made sure he brings his bike with him while escaping) is just ludicrous to me. As others have noted, the fan efforts like Star Trek Continues and Axanar are truer to the source material than the 3 Abrams movies have been.

      • therealeverton says:


        He’s an intelligent writer and a fan,so he was asked to make it Star Trek, but Star Trek like the general audience would love. Just like the original show and Next Gen, but away from Star Trek 1, which is classic “Star Trek”, but not accessible or fun.

        Star Trek was always, when good, entertaining, interesting to watch and fun.

        They had plenty of smooching (and apart from the restrictions on racial and gender issues, Spock & Uhura would very possibly have been an item on the show, so why that bothers you is beyond me. They had all the action they could afford and produce on that show, when the story called for it. This idea that it wasn’t a show with a lot of action comes from a misreading of that “too cerebral” thing and a failure to appreciate the time the show was made.

        Not to mention the reviews suggest this is not only the most Star Treky of the current series, but t’s also been suggested the most TV show like of ALL the films, including the Shatner ones, but STILL mass entertainment. Which Trek was in the first place.

        None of what you describe is un trek in the slightest.

      • Jpe says:

        Pegg was asked to make BEYOND “less Star Trek-ey.” Based on what I’ve seen in the trailers and commercials (Kirk’s motorcycle in space, Spock and Uhura still smooching etc, etc), it would appear that Pegg succeeded.

      • therealeverton says:

        Sorry mate. That’s my fault for not going into detail. Pegg wasn’t writing the current film, but then they needed to fix it and hired him to do so. While they could have got him on the ground floor this time, I’m hoping that, once he’s had time to recuperate from all the Star Trek and Star Wars Mission Impossible he’s been doing for the past two years, he’ll be up for it and end up writing this.

        You often enough find the first people listed as writers, don’t end up the final, or only writers.

  19. Jim says:

    Hemsworth is “starring”? Must be a lot of time travel or flashbacks since he died in the first rebooted movie.

    • millerfilm says:

      Yeah, time travel stuff drives me nuts usually, unless it’s the driving force in a movie (most obviously “The Time Machine,” etc.). So, this development instantly isn’t my favorite!

  20. crossie says:

    So … Star Trek’s just doing old episodes of new Doctor Who, then?

  21. EricJ says:

    There are two rules:
    1) Never greenlight a sequel on Monday morning.
    2) Never greenlight a sequel on Thursday afternoon.

  22. me westen says:

    Naw … I’m mowing my lawn.

More Film News from Variety