Jump to content


Photo

Kelvin Timeline RIP?


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#61 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 08 September 2016 - 05:14 PM

Yeah I figured maybe they were counting pay per view or something... Domestically they list the number of theaters or screens... They recently added that info to their site... But I couldn't find out what it really means.

#62 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 926 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2016 - 01:34 AM

I'm not sure if China screens movies the "western" way like we do here, or if they use the Korean method, but that could explain some potential discrepencies. Basically, (South) Korea screens movies (I'm pretty sure they still do this, at the very least they used to do it,) in a much more intimate environment than the US does. You don't pay for a giant theater with stadium seating over there, instead, you and a group of friends pay for a screening and the movie basically plays to a room of roughly 5–10 people on a slightly larger screen than what you'd get watching a TV. It's an entirely different experience than in the US, and if China has a similar set up, it could explain the number of screens being so obscurely high.

 

It's also possible that they're counting screenings rather than physical screens, which would change how the numbers are counted as well. One thing I have seen in various reports is that STB received far more 50th anniversary promotion in China than in the US, and it's widely believed that helped boost its earnings over there compared to over here, with at least one Wall Street type writing, (I believe in Forbes, but don't quote me on that,) that, and I quote, "Paramount should have delayed the release of STB to coincide with 09/08/2016" to hype up the 50th anniversary angle.



#63 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 16 September 2016 - 03:34 AM

The International take has just squeaked past the domestic. The Current take is now about 320Mil and so STB is closing on that magic 2x number that generally says its made money. at this point though it still needs to pull another 50 mil, and while I think it'll be a slog... I predict it will do it. 



#64 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 16 September 2016 - 04:32 PM

I think it's still yet to open in some places?

#65 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 16 September 2016 - 04:43 PM

I do have another question though:

So it seems as though a Star Trek 4 might happen... But with Star Trek Discovery coming, do we think anyone will care about the Kelvin Timeline? Beyond has just about made a profit (probably) but there has been a clear lack of interest in Beyond from the mainstream audiences needed to bankroll these movies, on top of an OK reaction from fans.

I think fans who has seen this movie have said that its the best out of the three but by and large I think a lot of people have said that its a solid film but goes nowhere new.

That kind of a reaction doesn't really bode well for future movies in the Kelvin Timeline, does it?

I'm just wondering if anyone out there really cares enough about these Star Trek movies to warrant them continuing to develop the Kelvin Timeline.

Personally I loved Beyond, I liked Into Darkness and I liked 2009 but honestly, I can take them or leave them. That surprised me because I want to see new Star Trek stories being told, I like this cast, I thought Jaylah was brilliant... It's just, I do find these movies to be kind of irrelevant?

Even more so now that Discovery is launching and reviving the Prime Universe.

#66 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 September 2016 - 10:15 AM

If the film division wants to keep pushing the Kelvin timeline, if only to continue this tried and true recasting of popular Star Trek characters, they will. I'll be a little surprised if the fourth flick doesn't allude to the Next Generation era. Part of it depends on how expensive the current ensemble cast gets and what Paramount believes its ROI can be.

 

I can see them forcing Picard Prime into the Kelvin timeline leading an away team in a search for Ambassador Spock. That could end with a mix of characters traveling back to the Prime timeline.

 

Hang on. I'm getting a nosebleed...



#67 WORF22

WORF22

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.J.

Posted 19 September 2016 - 02:34 PM

Memory Beta

 

 

The Federation Department of Temporal Investigations, commonly known as DTI, was a department of the United Federation of Planets government, established as a branch of the Federation Science Council, charged with investigating and reporting on all time travel incidents that affected the Federation. This included conducting interviews with those who experienced temporal incidents, and determining whether their actions had a definite impact on the timeline. (DS9 episode: "Trials and Tribble-ations") 

 

and as we have all seen on Voyager they go back and fix time if need be. so what i am trying to say is the JJ verse "no hate" does not exits.



#68 s8film40

s8film40

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 20 September 2016 - 06:50 AM

 

and as we have all seen on Voyager they go back and fix time if need be. so what i am trying to say is the JJ verse "no hate" does not exits.

This was always my problem with the Kelvin timeline. As a viewer I just didn't really care what happened at all. It's an alternate reality so they could crash the ship and kill off the whole crew and it changes nothing. You really had no emotional connection to the characters because of the way their existence was built in the movies.



#69 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2016 - 01:44 PM


This was always my problem with the Kelvin timeline. As a viewer I just didn't really care what happened at all. It's an alternate reality so they could crash the ship and kill off the whole crew and it changes nothing. You really had no emotional connection to the characters because of the way their existence was built in the movies.

 

It was just the opposite for me. With a new cast, anything goes. And let's be honest; how many alternate timelines have already been created but ignored in the "Prime" universe? You can't convince me that the events of "City on the Edge of Forever" didn't have some lasting ripples, however subtle.

 

In other news, I'm not sure if

this scuttlebutt has the potential to put the Kelvin timeline six feet under but it may end up reunifying the franchise. While I much prefer Trek on TV, it'd be great to have the film and television units on the same page again.



#70 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 28 September 2016 - 03:56 PM

I don't see how CBS would want to partner with Viacom again. They'd be better off buying certain parts of the Viacom family.

could CBS buy Paramount? Could CBS buy Star Trek back?

#71 MisterPL

MisterPL

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 December 2016 - 09:52 AM

Stocks are falling after the Viacom/CBS merger is tabled:

 

http://variety.com/2...ped-1201939671/



#72 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 19 December 2016 - 08:55 PM

Ok... so that was an interesting read... apparently 80% of both Viacom and CBS are owned by private equity company National Amusement. So in reality... they are kinda joined at the hip by their parent company... and it makes any issues about IP rights kinda moot... but I get why CBS doesn't want to re-merge... as Viacom's issues would be a drag on CBS which is really hitting it on all cylinders.



#73 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 14 January 2017 - 01:10 PM

Not sure if anyone has seen the latest news on Star Trek 4 but apparently Chris Hemsworth has been pitched an idea for Star Trek 4 by JJ Abrams...

Does anyone think they'll just have a movie with Chris Hemsworth on the Kelvin? And not bring the Enterprise crew back?

Could be a good way to cut costs, smaller cast, smaller budget, smaller movie with Hemsworth and a cast of unknowns?

Or do we all think that actually they're going to all come back and this will be an even bigger movie.

Also do we think Abrams will come back to direct? I mean after Star Wars, Will he really want to return to Star Trek? Or do we think he'll see it as a bigger challenge to make a successful (at least financially), smaller, more cerebral Star Trek movie

My gut feeling is that this is very early talks to gauge interest in the project. As far as I'm aware apart from Pine and Quinto, no one else has signed a contract to bring them back for a 4th movie.

Beyond never really got out of the Star Trek space dock in terms of being a runaway success with mainstream audiences, meaning that does anyone outside of fandom care about Star Trek? etc... And Paramount are in a mess!

I just can't see this movie happening. Unless something happens to shake up Paramount and whoever comes in and wants to do Star Trek or wants to sell the rights to Trek back to CBS then I think Paramount would be throwing money into a black hole, especially now that cbs are preparing to launch Star Trek on the medium its most popular on... Television.

it all seems a bit like after the long 4 year wait between Star Trek and starbtrek Into darkness really hurt the potential this revival had. I just think now, no one cares about Star Trek on the big screen.

#74 djc242

djc242

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 585 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 14 January 2017 - 01:18 PM

I have a gut feeling they will make a 4th film, especially if Thor is interested.

#75 Jay K

Jay K

    It's not a disease it's a hobby.

  • Members
  • 1,914 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Music, Star Trek, and gaming.

Posted 14 January 2017 - 10:59 PM

I watched Beyond tonight, and I've really not much to say other than it's not for me. I had a lot of issues with it, 90% of which comes down to personal taste.

 

One big problem which I found to be quite glaring though, was how the crew (Kirk especially, which I absolutely didn't understand) were really fatigued from doing what not only their prime universe counterparts loved, but was also the whole basis of the original series: A five year mission to boldly explore, and seek out new life. That's one of Star Trek's biggest draws for me - to imagine a time when we could be explorers again, so to have the film paint a picture of it being long and arduous, suggests that the people writing the story don't have an understanding of what Trek is really about - especially Trek based around the adventures of an Enterprise, and not (for instance) a space station.

 

Also, Saurian Brandy being outlawed?

Spoiler

 

 

In regards to a possible fourth film, I say bring it on, if only for the possibility of further prime-era toys and stuff. lol



#76 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 15 January 2017 - 08:40 AM

I watched Beyond tonight, and I've really not much to say other than it's not for me. I had a lot of issues with it, 90% of which comes down to personal taste.
 
One big problem which I found to be quite glaring though, was how the crew (Kirk especially, which I absolutely didn't understand) were really fatigued from doing what not only their prime universe counterparts loved, but was also the whole basis of the original series: A five year mission to boldly explore, and seek out new life. That's one of Star Trek's biggest draws for me - to imagine a time when we could be explorers again, so to have the film paint a picture of it being long and arduous, suggests that the people writing the story don't have an understanding of what Trek is really about - especially Trek based around the adventures of an Enterprise, and not (for instance) a space station.
 
In regards to a possible fourth film, I say bring it on, if only for the possibility of further prime-era toys and stuff. lol

I think in reality, a crew out in deep space onboard a starship for over 3 years would start to feel fatigued. It's something that should have been touched upon in TOS/TNG but never was. Even Voyager never really went deep enough into what it would be like for a crew stranded 75 light years from home.

The problem is, is that Star Trek Beyond was too little, too late. Star Trek has become a period piece of film and what Abrams has essentially done is taken Downton Abbey and made it into a modern day action adventure movie series.

Well, I mean it's not going to work is it. So lessons need to be learnt here.

More and more movies these days have become big, must see spectacles. Batman v Superman, Civil War, Star Wars, Rogue One...

How is a film, based upon a low budget TV series, going to cut it against the juggernauts of film? It can't and it won't. Regardless of how big Star Trek has become since its 60's inception, Star Trek is still a very niche, classical piece of hard science fiction.

If Star Trek 4 does happen then I hope they learn their lesson. Star Trek isn't a tent pole blockbuster franchise. The movies have always been as a result of the success of the TV series. The next Trek movie needs to play in the same wheelhouse as The Wrath of Khan, First Contact, The Martian, Gravity, Blade Runner, Alien... smaller scale, focused more on the characters, released outside of the blockbuster season.

And it also has to tie into everything else. These movies have failed as a whole because they don't tie into the legacy and the canon. Star Trek 4 has to tie into that. It has to say to its audience, this is a Star Trek movie, if you haven't watched Star Trek before then you'll probably need help getting a lot of what's going on.

#77 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 January 2017 - 03:34 PM

For me Star Trek was the premier sci-fi franchise... for a long time it carried the sci-fi torch after shows like the outer limits or twilight zone were done... and when there was scant little being offered... even after its 3 season run. Sometimes it got a bit preachy or a bit hokey... but it really was the gold standard for decades, and the first few movies and spin offs like TNG and DS9 solidified it for me through the early 2000's.

 

But then, just as it seemed to be running into issues with VOY, then ENT and up to present day... we seem to have been getting more and better sci-fi... not just on TV but in the theaters.  Shows like Firefly were early signs that the tastes of sci-fi had shifted... even if the critics didn't know it yet! Then we got edgier stuff like the new BSG or Dollhouse.  Meanwhile at theaters... movies like The Martian, Interstellar, Arrival, Ex Machina, Inception, Moon all of which I consider great sci-fi... some even have a better "Classic Trek" vibe IMO then the current franchise offers. 

 

My point is I've found plenty of better sci-fi to sate my desire... and I'm ok with that... maybe there just aren't anymore compelling stories to tell in the Star Trek voice... but there are plenty of good sci-fi stories being told on TV and in the theaters, and I'll enjoy classic trek and support more modern sci-fi story telling!



#78 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 15 January 2017 - 07:18 PM

For me Star Trek was the premier sci-fi franchise... for a long time it carried the sci-fi torch after shows like the outer limits or twilight zone were done... and when there was scant little being offered... even after its 3 season run. Sometimes it got a bit preachy or a bit hokey... but it really was the gold standard for decades, and the first few movies and spin offs like TNG and DS9 solidified it for me through the early 2000's.
 
But then, just as it seemed to be running into issues with VOY, then ENT and up to present day... we seem to have been getting more and better sci-fi... not just on TV but in the theaters.  Shows like Firefly were early signs that the tastes of sci-fi had shifted... even if the critics didn't know it yet! Then we got edgier stuff like the new BSG or Dollhouse.  Meanwhile at theaters... movies like The Martian, Interstellar, Arrival, Ex Machina, Inception, Moon all of which I consider great sci-fi... some even have a better "Classic Trek" vibe IMO then the current franchise offers. 
 
My point is I've found plenty of better sci-fi to sate my desire... and I'm ok with that... maybe there just aren't anymore compelling stories to tell in the Star Trek voice... but there are plenty of good sci-fi stories being told on TV and in the theaters, and I'll enjoy classic trek and support more modern sci-fi story telling!


I certainly think you have a point.

The problems with Star Trek began when it failed to change quick enough with the world around it. During TNG, Star Trek was it, if you wanted to watch sci-fi, you watched Star Trek.

As a result of its success though, as you said, a lot of other science fiction shows started poping up and in many ways replacing Star Trek. Paramount and the production teams involved with Star Trek through Voyager and Enterprise didn't do enough to keep Star Trek in the public eye, didn't do enough to tell people that Star Trek was still the king of science fiction. As a result of what boils down to poor management on Paramounts behalf, Star Trek became irrelevant and ultimately continues to be just that.

Yes it's an important piece of science fiction. Without Star Trek, there would have been no Star Wars or StarGate or... you know this story... but we're talking about series decades old now that have had any cultural impact on society. Since TNG ended, Star Trek's relevance has been in question and ultimately with the "revival" of Star Trek on the big screen, I think the relevance isn't there. When you're sitting and watching Star Trek, Star Trek Into darkness or Star Trek Beyond, you may enjoy them on some level but I'm sure as hell that when you're watching these movies, you're also thinking, gee, do you remember when Star Trek was relevant?

That being said...

The Star Trek isn't dead. There is still a very promenant place for Star Trek. As long as what comes next respects what made Star Trek so pioneering and relevant to its audiences... Abrams needs to truly understand what Star Trek IS, not what he wants it to be if Star Trek 4 is to be successful... it can not be a continuation of his vision for Star Trek, it has to be something that revolutionises Star Trek storytelling but maintains its legacy and it's canon.

But Star Trek: Discovery is next and personally it has a lot to fix and to make right. Star Trek has been dead for decades. It needs to be something as groundbreaking as the original series was for the 60's to retake its relevance and it's crown as the premier sci-if series.

Science Fiction on TV is by and large reduced to Doctor Who and a few other shows that don't have the heritage Star Trek has. If Star Trek: Discovery does something refreshingly new, relevant and invigorating whilst maintaing the crucial canonical legacy of Star Trek then this could be the revival Star Trek has needed since Enterprise ended.

#79 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 15 January 2017 - 07:22 PM

But most of all, whilst these studios have to spend millions to make a show like Star Trek, Star Trek is at its finest when it's limited to having to tell decent, well written, intelligent, profound stories.

#80 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 16 January 2017 - 05:36 AM

Yep, the heritage of Star Trek is probably the largest and longest of any sci-fi show out there and I think it does surpass Dr Who... which BTW... I thought has been brilliantly updated and is thoroughly enjoyable. There are some other notable efforts out there... "Humans" for example... but American TV and viewing tastes have shifted more towards the British model where we can expect better but shorter episodic runs of shows... and that may include Star Trek Shows like Discovery. 

 

I'm always going to be rooting for their success, but like you say if I get a to see a well written, intelligent profound story... I'm kinda a good! I'm kinda a rooting for "Arrival" for best picture this year... now thats a "first contact" story!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users