Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek Beyond


  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#321 MisterPL

MisterPL

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2016 - 01:59 PM

Spock's been a huge problem for the franchise.

 

The network didn't like him because he looked like Satan. He became ridiculously popular anyway.

 

Nimoy wouldn't return for Phase II so they wrote him out but back in again when they decided to make TMP.

 

He'd come back for Star Trek II but only if Spock was killed off.

 

He'd bring back Spock but only if Nimoy got to direct III.

 

Spock wasn't around to pass the torch to the Next Generation on film but Nimoy was okay with Spock-centric TV episodes.

 

Nemesis was begging to wrap up Spock's story by making him the Romulan threat to the Federation thanks to Bendii Syndrome but nooOOOooo...

 

Now we've moved on to another Spock and we're talking about making Quinto's the same common thread to two timelines as Nimoy's.  :wacko:

 

 

 

I love Spock.



#322 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2016 - 04:54 PM

^The last thing I want to see is Quinto's Spock shoehorned into the Prime Universe for the sake of having the character in DSC. I'm still not fond of DSC's setting and have reservations about single story–arc 12 episode seasons, (can't we get three 8–9 episode story arcs in a 26 episode season? Hell, can't we take a page from Grimm and mix an ongoing arc with the standalone stories Trek did so well?) and the the distribution platform, but I think it has a lot of potential if it's handled right. I'd prefer that the ship never encouter the Enterprise though, not unless it's done in a way comparable to Trials and Tribble–ations on DS9 where old footage was mixed with new.

 

I'm pretty sure they mean "shared cinematic universe," which, like I said, we already have in Star Trek.

 

We've had DS9 and Voyager. Janeway's appeared on film as has Worf's DefiantDiscovery is on the way. It's clear the television series and films all share the same cinematic universe even if the focus in films is the Enterprise.

It goes further than that though, we have a shared cinematic and TV universe; the new movies just chose to ignore that, even though Paramount could have done so if they'd chosen too; their rights extend to past material for the big screen too, so it's not like the next film couldn't be "Voyager in the Alpha Quadrant" if they wanted it too; hell I'd pay good money for VGR films at this point, especially if they occasionally featured some of the DS9 cast using the station to resupply the same way they docked there in Caretaker. Hell, this is exactly what we were going to get before NEM and ENT tanked and Paramount decided they wanted to go with a reboot for the movies.

 

Abrams' Trek should have been a pilot for a new series. Unfortunately with the franchise split between film and TV divisions, I suppose that wasn't possible. It's fun to think about what might have been. Clearly the Powers That Be aren't learning from their mistakes or anyone else's.

It was possible, CBS was fully willing to give Abrams a TV series based on Trek XI, but Abrams made laughably unrealistic demands. As a condition of producing a TV series, he wanted all Prime Universe merchandise yanked from the shelves so that only his Kirk would be the one people saw. That obviously was never going to fly with CBS, and they ultimately passed when he made that a sticking point, citing "brand confusion," which is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and proof that CBS made the right decision. (If two Kirks is "confusing," you shouldn't be watching Trek!)

 

Also, I noticed someone suggest that Abrams was the one who pushed for the reboot, that's not entirely true. While Abrams suggested a reboot feeling that continuity tied his hands, Paramount was sort of pushing for it anyway, so he got exactly what he wanted. Paramount had already explored the idea of a pre–TOS post–ENT film, but they were reluctant to introduce unknown characters on the big screen with no past characters who were recognizable, so they dropped that idea and pushed for the reboot instead. (I prefer the other idea where we'd have gotten new characters in the prime timeline on the big screen.) In contrast, Paramount wisely wanted a 25th century TV series after VGR, but Berman and Braga wanted a prequel, and a really "prequel–y" prequel at that, so the two were at odds constantly compromising. The Temporal Cold War, probably one of the few interesting elements of ENT that was there early on, was B&B's way of appeasing TPTB with something further in the future, and it's a storyline I wish we'd seen explored more in detail. Hell, it's basically the blueprint for that 25th century series that DSC should have been, but we're still stuck going backwards for no good reason. (I'm really sick of this mentality that we can't set anything after 2379, because it's, to use a parlance Dr. McCoy would be familiar with, horse shit. Sorry, Data's death doesn't mean the end of the Prime Timeline, there's more out there that could be just as intriguing as everything that came before it.) If B&B had their way, ENT wouldn't have even had a proper ship until the third season or so, either relying on the Vulcans or using rocket–style crafts like NX–Alpha/Beta early on while the ship was being built. Paramount pretty much but the kibosh on that right out of the gate though.

 

As for the new movies, I honestly think we'll probably see a Star Trek XIV sooner rather than later; Beyond performed within expectations despite its box office numbers. This year was abysmal for any sort of sequel or spin–off, and Beyond did a lot better than most of its competition in that department, and also managed to avoid being panned by critics the way most other spin–offs and sequels were. Paramount already has contracts inked with a decent chunk of the Bridge crew too, and the thing that blew the budget was the action scenes that the fans don't want anyway, but Paramount was previously forcing down the production crew's throats, so cutting a handful of of those will allow a follow–up film that looks and feels more like Trek to be produced, and to be produced on a profitable budget at that. The fact that a follow–up film isn't planned yet isn't a bad thing. In the past we've had these films planned and then Paramount has sat on their hands and wound up rushing, so I'd rather they announce planning sometime next year and deliver on the same three year time table they've been delivering on instead of green–lighting a follow–up and doing nothing for a year or more and then delaying the follow–up instead.



#323 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 24 November 2016 - 07:25 AM

^The last thing I want to see is Quinto's Spock shoehorned into the Prime Universe for the sake of having the character in DSC. I'm still not fond of DSC's setting and have reservations about single story–arc 12 episode seasons, (can't we get three 8–9 episode story arcs in a 26 episode season? Hell, can't we take a page from Grimm and mix an ongoing arc with the standalone stories Trek did so well?) and the the distribution platform, but I think it has a lot of potential if it's handled right. I'd prefer that the ship never encouter the Enterprise though, not unless it's done in a way comparable to Trials and Tribble–ations on DS9 where old footage was mixed with new.

 

It goes further than that though, we have a shared cinematic and TV universe; the new movies just chose to ignore that, even though Paramount could have done so if they'd chosen too; their rights extend to past material for the big screen too, so it's not like the next film couldn't be "Voyager in the Alpha Quadrant" if they wanted it too; hell I'd pay good money for VGR films at this point, especially if they occasionally featured some of the DS9 cast using the station to resupply the same way they docked there in Caretaker. Hell, this is exactly what we were going to get before NEM and ENT tanked and Paramount decided they wanted to go with a reboot for the movies.

 

It was possible, CBS was fully willing to give Abrams a TV series based on Trek XI, but Abrams made laughably unrealistic demands. As a condition of producing a TV series, he wanted all Prime Universe merchandise yanked from the shelves so that only his Kirk would be the one people saw. That obviously was never going to fly with CBS, and they ultimately passed when he made that a sticking point, citing "brand confusion," which is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and proof that CBS made the right decision. (If two Kirks is "confusing," you shouldn't be watching Trek!)

 

Also, I noticed someone suggest that Abrams was the one who pushed for the reboot, that's not entirely true. While Abrams suggested a reboot feeling that continuity tied his hands, Paramount was sort of pushing for it anyway, so he got exactly what he wanted. Paramount had already explored the idea of a pre–TOS post–ENT film, but they were reluctant to introduce unknown characters on the big screen with no past characters who were recognizable, so they dropped that idea and pushed for the reboot instead. (I prefer the other idea where we'd have gotten new characters in the prime timeline on the big screen.) In contrast, Paramount wisely wanted a 25th century TV series after VGR, but Berman and Braga wanted a prequel, and a really "prequel–y" prequel at that, so the two were at odds constantly compromising. The Temporal Cold War, probably one of the few interesting elements of ENT that was there early on, was B&B's way of appeasing TPTB with something further in the future, and it's a storyline I wish we'd seen explored more in detail. Hell, it's basically the blueprint for that 25th century series that DSC should have been, but we're still stuck going backwards for no good reason. (I'm really sick of this mentality that we can't set anything after 2379, because it's, to use a parlance Dr. McCoy would be familiar with, horse shit. Sorry, Data's death doesn't mean the end of the Prime Timeline, there's more out there that could be just as intriguing as everything that came before it.) If B&B had their way, ENT wouldn't have even had a proper ship until the third season or so, either relying on the Vulcans or using rocket–style crafts like NX–Alpha/Beta early on while the ship was being built. Paramount pretty much but the kibosh on that right out of the gate though.

 

As for the new movies, I honestly think we'll probably see a Star Trek XIV sooner rather than later; Beyond performed within expectations despite its box office numbers. This year was abysmal for any sort of sequel or spin–off, and Beyond did a lot better than most of its competition in that department, and also managed to avoid being panned by critics the way most other spin–offs and sequels were. Paramount already has contracts inked with a decent chunk of the Bridge crew too, and the thing that blew the budget was the action scenes that the fans don't want anyway, but Paramount was previously forcing down the production crew's throats, so cutting a handful of of those will allow a follow–up film that looks and feels more like Trek to be produced, and to be produced on a profitable budget at that. The fact that a follow–up film isn't planned yet isn't a bad thing. In the past we've had these films planned and then Paramount has sat on their hands and wound up rushing, so I'd rather they announce planning sometime next year and deliver on the same three year time table they've been delivering on instead of green–lighting a follow–up and doing nothing for a year or more and then delaying the follow–up instead.

 

Guys, look. We know Star Trek: Discovery will certainly take some inspiration from the Abrams movies and although it would be a stretch to have them all appear as their younger selves in Discovery, it isn't too far fetched to believe at least Quinto will make an appearance as a younger Spock. The classic crew are all out there somewhere and not onboard the Enterprise with the exception of... Spock! By the sounds of it, Discovery is going to have a lot of scope to it, so it would be logical to assume that at some point in this series we're going to see Pike's Enterprise no? 

 

Alex, Paramount couldn't have done anything but reinvent Star Trek - Kirk and Spock are the poster boys for Star Trek. If you don't know Trek, you're sure to know Spock or Kirk. As well as the obvious opportunities reinventing Kirk and Spock gave Paramount; Their licence with CBS did not allow them to use anything from previous Star Trek's in any substantial way. To the point where CBS didn't allow anyone who had worked on previous Trek's to work with Paramount/JJ on the new Star Trek's they were producing - John Eaves was the exception and did it as a 'favour' to a friend working on the 2009 movie. Ultimately the reigns loosened during Beyond as CBS have seemed more open to the idea of including the Abrams universe into the Prime universe - hence why it was agreed that the Okuda's would create the name "The Kelvin Timeline" for The Star Trek Book for DK and for their own Star Trek Encyclopaedia. There's an interesting interview with John Eaves over on youtube conducted by IrishTrekkie and I believe Trekyards has also spoken to Eaves and Hargreaves (The designer on Beyond for the Franklin, Enterprise Refit and Enterprise A) regarding the challenges working on the Abrams movies. 

 

I don't think it's as easy as you all assume it has been of Abrams to get these movies made and to have them feel as much a part of Star Trek as possible. From listening to Eaves talk, it sounds like Abrams was up against the wall from day one by being in between two studio's that hated one another. It's certainly going to be a good read when Abrams releases an official biography because it sounds like the plans he had for Star Trek were far reaching. While I agree that CBS had to temper his wild ideas of "replacing" classic (TOS - ENT) Star Trek with his brand of Trek, I think the two studios have been quite impossible to work with and ultimately this is why we are where we are with these movies. Abrams wasn't able to create the revived/revised Star Trek franchise he had envisioned, that ultimately would have ended up with a far more robust, popular, profitable franchise than the one we have now...

 

I don't think we will see Star Trek 4.



#324 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crapland....some call it Norway.

Posted 25 November 2016 - 12:15 AM

Guess I missed the episode or movie where only Spock is on the Enterprise,lol!

 

And I will ALWAYS hope for another ST movie!

 

I've watched STB a few times now and I really do love it,and that's why I hope they do another movie with this cast.

 

J-R!



#325 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 26 November 2016 - 08:02 PM

Guess I missed the episode or movie where only Spock is on the Enterprise,lol!

 

Its called "The Cage"... The events of that episode happen in the year Star Trek: Discovery is reportedly taking place in.

 

 

 

And I will ALWAYS hope for another ST movie!

 

I've watched STB a few times now and I really do love it,and that's why I hope they do another movie with this cast.

 

J-R!

 

I hope that they do something with the new universe/crew because it would be a huge shame if Star Trek Beyond is the final thing we see from the Kelvin Universe. My thinking is that they'd be better off fleshing this new timeline out though through an animated TV series using the crew of the Enterprise but also other new characters seen perhaps in the comic books, as well as Jaylah and also the crew of the USS Kelvin. The issue with these new movies is that in an industry full of big franchises with multiple layers to them for adults and kids alike to get involved with, to buy the toys, the video games and so on... Star Trek can't just continue with these stand alone movies if their ultimate aim is to increase the interest in the franchise with a broader audience. 

 

With Discovery, it's looking more like it will go the Game of Thrones route and appeal to an older teenage/20 something and beyond age group. It doesn't really seem to be a series geared towards the kids. 

 

Well if Star Trek is to prosper for another 50 years, it's all very well going and doing prime-universe-centric TV series and really appealing to the fans as well as an older audience, but ultimately the kids are the future and the Kelvin timeline is absolutely perfect for that generation. Introduce them to teh adventure, the action and the cool ships, aliens etc... Get them interested in the ideas that Star Trek promotes of a more optimistic, brighter future and open the door for them to explore the rest of the Franchise as they grow up. 

 

Instead of a movie every three years and a comic book series which might be awesome but reaches a very small audience compared to that of an animated series with a tie in toy line and video game franchise. 

 

They've got to do more with Star Trek and really I think Abrams is the guy to develop something along side the prime universe and the development of Discovery that will both chart it's own course but compliment what has come before as well as what CBS develop in the future for the Prime Universe.



#326 Alex

Alex

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 921 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2016 - 03:14 AM

Guys, look. We know Star Trek: Discovery will certainly take some inspiration from the Abrams movies and although it would be a stretch to have them all appear as their younger selves in Discovery, it isn't too far fetched to believe at least Quinto will make an appearance as a younger Spock. The classic crew are all out there somewhere and not onboard the Enterprise with the exception of... Spock! By the sounds of it, Discovery is going to have a lot of scope to it, so it would be logical to assume that at some point in this series we're going to see Pike's Enterprise no?

I don't necessarily believe that DSC is going to borrow any inspiration from the Kelvin Timeline movies, if anything, Beyond basically tried to get away from them aesthetically a bit by drawing on TOS for costume design rather than Trek XI and STID. Beyond took its ship design cues from Prime Universe material while DSC took its cues from the McQuarrie design, and the ship itself has supposedly undergone radical changes already, with completely different nacelle designs according to Bryan Fuller. Given that the changes are supposedly a reaction to fan criticisms, and that fans seem to really hate the "bulky nacelle" look of both the Kelvin Timeline and the concept design of the U.S.S. Discovery, I doubt they'll be borrowing that design element, or really any others. Given that this is set ten years before TOS, and given what we know about the Enterprise, (Kirk had it for two five year missions, and it was 25 years old when he destroyed it, which means it would be five years old at the start of DSC,) I actually wouldn't mind if we saw Captain Robert April's Enterprise rather than Captain Pike's if we saw the Enterprise at all. If anything, it would actually be more logical to not show the Enterprise if DSC is going to have a lot of scope to it, because showing the Enterprise would make the vastness of space and the size of Starfleet look significantly smaller, and ultimately reduce that grandiose scope that DSC is supposedly aiming for. Having the Enterprise off pushing way, way out into the farthest reaches of the known universe while DSC and the ships it encounters are elsewhere the whole time would actually do far more to drive home both the vastness of space and the size of Starfleet. I would argue that it would actually be best if we didn't see the Enterprise, or at most, only saw it leaving some sort of space station while the U.S.S. Discovery was approaching said space station.
 

Alex, Paramount couldn't have done anything but reinvent Star Trek - Kirk and Spock are the poster boys for Star Trek. If you don't know Trek, you're sure to know Spock or Kirk. As well as the obvious opportunities reinventing Kirk and Spock gave Paramount; Their licence with CBS did not allow them to use anything from previous Star Trek's in any substantial way. To the point where CBS didn't allow anyone who had worked on previous Trek's to work with Paramount/JJ on the new Star Trek's they were producing - John Eaves was the exception and did it as a 'favour' to a friend working on the 2009 movie. Ultimately the reigns loosened during Beyond as CBS have seemed more open to the idea of including the Abrams universe into the Prime universe - hence why it was agreed that the Okuda's would create the name "The Kelvin Timeline" for The Star Trek Book for DK and for their own Star Trek Encyclopaedia. There's an interesting interview with John Eaves over on youtube conducted by IrishTrekkie and I believe Trekyards has also spoken to Eaves and Hargreaves (The designer on Beyond for the Franklin, Enterprise Refit and Enterprise A) regarding the challenges working on the Abrams movies.

Actually, if you didn't know Trek in 2009, you were far more likely to know Picard and Riker, (or Picard and Data,) than you were to know Kirk or Spock. In fact, people who don't know Trek typically weren't even aware that Spock was the one with the pointy ears at the time Trek XI was being produced. Paramount had other options beyond the reboot, but the reboot was the laziest, safest option, which is why Paramount ran with it. They were really interested in one pitch for a post–ENT pre–TOS film about a guy named Tiberius who would have been the namesake for Kirk's middle name, but the higher–ups were afraid of introducing a brand new cast and unknown characters on the big screen, which is why they went with the reboot. Also, at the time Trek XI was actually in pre–production and production, (2006–2008, with most of 2008 actually being post–production before the film was moved to a 2009 release date,) Paramount was hardly restrained by any licensing conflicts with CBS. The two initially split in 2006 for reasons previously mentioned, but the way the ownership of the movies and TV shows were split, Paramount basically controlled movie production rights for new films, and theatrical distribution rights for those films. CBS controlled the rights to the material in the older films, but Paramount had the distribution rights to them on various video formats. The rights were initially split in such a way that Paramount was effectively a glorified licensee producing a movie on behalf of CBS. Eaves wasn't the only person who worked on Trek XI that had carried over from previous production crews; the Okudas acted as consultants to JJ and his team when they first got involved, although they didn't have as much say as they did when they returned for Beyond. CBS didn't allow the crew who had worked on previous Treks to work on the 2009 movie because their last film had been a commercial disaster and their last TV show ended Trek's continuous 18–year run. They may have cloaked that decision in the enforcement of a non–compete clause, but if they were satisfied with NEM and ENT at the time they would have waived it the way studios do when they feel it's in their interest to do so.
 

I don't think it's as easy as you all assume it has been of Abrams to get these movies made and to have them feel as much a part of Star Trek as possible. From listening to Eaves talk, it sounds like Abrams was up against the wall from day one by being in between two studio's that hated one another. It's certainly going to be a good read when Abrams releases an official biography because it sounds like the plans he had for Star Trek were far reaching. While I agree that CBS had to temper his wild ideas of "replacing" classic (TOS - ENT) Star Trek with his brand of Trek, I think the two studios have been quite impossible to work with and ultimately this is why we are where we are with these movies. Abrams wasn't able to create the revived/revised Star Trek franchise he had envisioned, that ultimately would have ended up with a far more robust, popular, profitable franchise than the one we have now...

I don't want to say too much, but I knew people with ties to CBS/Viacom at the time that the two split. The impression that I was given was that the "fallout" wasn't nearly as bad as people today make it seem, and that the two studios were actually working quite well with one another all the way through 2009. The lightning rod for controversy though was J.J. Abrams, I know I've mentioned this before but CBS always considered him to be a "hack" who occasionally got lucky with shows like Lost, while other studios like Disney considered him to be a "genius," precisely because of said shows. CBS was less than thrilled that Paramount handed him Trek, but they tried to work with him, it was only after Trek XI's success that things really deteriorated when Abrams wanted to replace the Prime Universe that CBS really took issue with him. You're right about Abrams original plans being very far reaching, and very different from what we actually got. If it weren't for that crazy idea of "replacing" the Prime Universe, CBS was very willing to work with him after Trek XI was such a success. STID's failure only reinforced CBS's view of Abrams and effectively ensured his TV series idea would never see the light of day though.
 

I don't think we will see Star Trek 4.

I think you're wrong about this. Paramount is apparently still planning to push ahead with their idea that would see Chris Hemsworth return as George Kirk alongside Chris Pine's James T. Kirk, presumably in some sort of time travel story. Contracts are inked for Pine, Quinto, Saldana, and I believe Pegg signed on a few months ago as well. This effectively just leaves Urban and Cho without contracts, and both have said that they'd sign on for a fourth film if asked. (Lin and Pegg also confirmed that they wouldn't be recasting Chekov.) Pegg knows the film could have done better and the word is that both he and Paramount are in agreement that the next film is going to dial back the explosions and the action as a cost–cutting measure, and a cost–cutting measure that the fans will appreciate. With that in mind, I think Trek XIV is still on, I just don't think we're hearing much about it yet because it's only the end of 2016 and we usually don't hear anything until a year or two after the previous film about the direction of the next one. The fact that we know as much as we do is a bit of a surprise. We didn't have much knowledge about STID until 2011 and really 2012, and we didn't know much about Beyond until 2015 for that matter either; the fact that we know a potential plot for the next film is far more than we ever had with the last three films.



#327 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crapland....some call it Norway.

Posted 27 November 2016 - 07:13 AM

Well obviously.....IF it's set during that time. I'm kinda hoping it's not. And I was thinking if it was set after the movies,that's why I was wondering about it. I tend to forget that it's an alternate timeline,lol!

I do hope the ongoing comic series continues as I really love it! And love that they do little mini series at the same time,like Manifest Destiny.

Guess we'll just have wait and see when it comes to a new movie.

#328 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 27 November 2016 - 10:50 AM

Well obviously.....IF it's set during that time. I'm kinda hoping it's not. And I was thinking if it was set after the movies,that's why I was wondering about it. I tend to forget that it's an alternate timeline,lol!

I do hope the ongoing comic series continues as I really love it! And love that they do little mini series at the same time,like Manifest Destiny.

Guess we'll just have wait and see when it comes to a new movie.

 

Errr, It's been confirmed for a while now that Star Trek: Discovery is set 10 years before TOS which would place it during the time the events of The Cage happened.

 

 

I don't necessarily believe that DSC is going to borrow any inspiration from the Kelvin Timeline movies, if anything, Beyond basically tried to get away from them aesthetically a bit by drawing on TOS for costume design rather than Trek XI and STID. Beyond took its ship design cues from Prime Universe material while DSC took its cues from the McQuarrie design, and the ship itself has supposedly undergone radical changes already, with completely different nacelle designs according to Bryan Fuller. Given that the changes are supposedly a reaction to fan criticisms, and that fans seem to really hate the "bulky nacelle" look of both the Kelvin Timeline and the concept design of the U.S.S. Discovery, I doubt they'll be borrowing that design element, or really any others. Given that this is set ten years before TOS, and given what we know about the Enterprise, (Kirk had it for two five year missions, and it was 25 years old when he destroyed it, which means it would be five years old at the start of DSC,) I actually wouldn't mind if we saw Captain Robert April's Enterprise rather than Captain Pike's if we saw the Enterprise at all. If anything, it would actually be more logical to not show the Enterprise if DSC is going to have a lot of scope to it, because showing the Enterprise would make the vastness of space and the size of Starfleet look significantly smaller, and ultimately reduce that grandiose scope that DSC is supposedly aiming for. Having the Enterprise off pushing way, way out into the farthest reaches of the known universe while DSC and the ships it encounters are elsewhere the whole time would actually do far more to drive home both the vastness of space and the size of Starfleet. I would argue that it would actually be best if we didn't see the Enterprise, or at most, only saw it leaving some sort of space station while the U.S.S. Discovery was approaching said space station.

 

Fuller is on record of saying that they can't ignore the Kelvin Timeline, it has to be acknowledged as there are new fans who expect that style of Star Trek. Its possible that Discovery will share a look very similar to the aesthetic of the USS Kelvin. As for the Enterprise appearing in the Discovery series - I doubt it'll show up in the first 13 episodes but I wouldn't put it past appearing at some point. The Enterprise IS Star Trek.
 

Actually, if you didn't know Trek in 2009, you were far more likely to know Picard and Riker, (or Picard and Data,) than you were to know Kirk or Spock.

 

Utter rubbish!!! Thats like saying if you didn't know Star Wars in 2009, you'd probably more likely to know Jar Jar Binks than Han Freekin Solo. I'm a TNG baby and I knew Kirk and Spock. Those guys are the poster boys for Star Trek - especially Spock. 

 

In fact, people who don't know Trek typically weren't even aware that Spock was the one with the pointy ears at the time Trek XI was being produced. Paramount had other options beyond the reboot, but the reboot was the laziest, safest option, which is why Paramount ran with it. They were really interested in one pitch for a post–ENT pre–TOS film about a guy named Tiberius who would have been the namesake for Kirk's middle name, but the higher–ups were afraid of introducing a brand new cast and unknown characters on the big screen, which is why they went with the reboot.

 

As I understand it, They had a script by Eric Jendressen called Star Trek: Beginnings or something along those lines. It was to be a war movie set within the Romulan Wars. That was scrapped by Paramount who was really looking for something that would take Star Trek to a mainstream audience. In steps JJ Abrams. His idea to return to Kirk and Spock was far more appealing to a studio looking for their own big franchise and their own version of Star Wars. Kirk and Spock were Abrams idea and ultimately from the studio's perspective, an idea that had the potential to make them a lot of money. 

 

 

I don't want to say too much, but I knew people with ties to CBS/Viacom at the time that the two split. The impression that I was given was that the "fallout" wasn't nearly as bad as people today make it seem, and that the two studios were actually working quite well with one another all the way through 2009. The lightning rod for controversy though was J.J. Abrams, I know I've mentioned this before but CBS always considered him to be a "hack" who occasionally got lucky with shows like Lost, while other studios like Disney considered him to be a "genius," precisely because of said shows. CBS was less than thrilled that Paramount handed him Trek, but they tried to work with him, it was only after Trek XI's success that things really deteriorated when Abrams wanted to replace the Prime Universe that CBS really took issue with him. You're right about Abrams original plans being very far reaching, and very different from what we actually got. If it weren't for that crazy idea of "replacing" the Prime Universe, CBS was very willing to work with him after Trek XI was such a success. STID's failure only reinforced CBS's view of Abrams and effectively ensured his TV series idea would never see the light of day though.

 

You see this is where I have a hard time believing some of the things you say Alex. You have no contractual obligation to CBS to not say as much as would prove what you were saying was accurate. Whether the fall out was as bad or not as bad as we are all lead to believe it was or wasn't, the fact is, from multiple sources it seems as though the split between CBS and Paramount wasn't all rosy which lead to complications in producing the new movies. I highly doubt that CBS would be on the record as saying that Abrams was a hack, perhaps a few people working for CBS sure but no one would come on the record and say that Abrams was a hack when he had had a lot of success with LOST.

 

The more likely of stories is that before the 2009 movie, I doubt CBS really wanted Paramount to push forward with anything Star Trek. Believing that Star Trek was probably due a longer rest after Enterprise and that actually Star Trek wasn't a movie franchise at all after Nemesis and that if any revival was to happen, it should be on TV.

 

CBS weren't interested in resurrecting Star Trek but weren't keen to relinquish control over THEIR franchise to Paramount so, probably took a harder line with what could and could not be done in regards to the 2009 movie. For example - the Enterprise had to look clearly different than the TOS Enterprise. I don't think this had anything to do with Abrams. Abrams was a hired hand asked by Paramount to make Star Trek "cool" and "accessible" to a broader audience after they were pleased with his work on MI:3. From MI:3 and Transformers, Paramount then sought out a deal with Bad Robot of which producing Star Trek was a part of. - People may think Abrams is a hack but clearly he made a Star Trek movie that got people's attention. 

 

What happened after that was a disaster. CBS denied Abrams the chance to develop a multi-platformed media franchise with Star Trek and that was that. I don't blame or think less of Abrams for wanting his take on Star Trek to be the only Star Trek out there. I don't blame CBS for saying no but I do tend to believe that by CBS saying no to Abrams, it was inevitable that this new Kelvin Timeline would fall apart and ultimately Into Darkness showed this. If CBS wasn't going to support the new Star Trek franchise, then what was the point of reviving it in the first place? There's your problem. 

 

Big movie franchises today rely on tie-in animated TV series, big merchandise pushes and video game tie-ins - Thats what would have happened with the 2009 movie and Star Trek would have been in a very different, probably more profitable place now had CBS not stood in the way I think and instead pushed merchandise from TOS and TNG on the back of Abrams movies. 

 

I think you're wrong about this. Paramount is apparently still planning to push ahead with their idea that would see Chris Hemsworth return as George Kirk alongside Chris Pine's James T. Kirk, presumably in some sort of time travel story. Contracts are inked for Pine, Quinto, Saldana, and I believe Pegg signed on a few months ago as well. This effectively just leaves Urban and Cho without contracts, and both have said that they'd sign on for a fourth film if asked. (Lin and Pegg also confirmed that they wouldn't be recasting Chekov.) Pegg knows the film could have done better and the word is that both he and Paramount are in agreement that the next film is going to dial back the explosions and the action as a cost–cutting measure, and a cost–cutting measure that the fans will appreciate. With that in mind, I think Trek XIV is still on, I just don't think we're hearing much about it yet because it's only the end of 2016 and we usually don't hear anything until a year or two after the previous film about the direction of the next one. The fact that we know as much as we do is a bit of a surprise. We didn't have much knowledge about STID until 2011 and really 2012, and we didn't know much about Beyond until 2015 for that matter either; the fact that we know a potential plot for the next film is far more than we ever had with the last three films.

 

If I'm wrong then great but it still doesn't solve the problem these movies have. Where you're getting your information from, I'm not sure as nothing as far as I know has been mentioned about Star Trek 4 beyond Abrams saying they have a story and would like to push forward with it and that Pine and Quinto have signed on for a POTENTIAL fourth movie. Nothing about Saldana and co. Signing up and I'd assume that Saldana signing on for a 4th movie would be big entertainment news. She's pretty tied up with Guardians and Avatar so when she's going to be free to do a 4th Trek movie is a mystery.

 

The problem these movies have though is that they're not well liked within the fan base, they have very few ties to what fans do love about Star Trek, the canon, the legacy and the timeline that has been developed over 50 years. More than that though, the mainstream audiences Paramount expect to flock to see Pines Kirk et al, just aren't all that bothered... Star Trek Beyond might have perked a few fans interests but ultimately the movie had a lacklustre time of it in cinemas across the globe, as if with one voice people shouted; I suppose Beyond is ok but nobody cares! 

 

CBS must be having a great time right now because I bet you that come the launch of Star Trek: Discovery, there will be more of and emphasis on pushing Discovery merchandise than merchandise based on TOS and TNG.



#329 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crapland....some call it Norway.

Posted 27 November 2016 - 02:33 PM

Believe it or not,I actually know that,since I still follow any Trek news. Doesn't mean I can't hope they'll change their mind,lol!

Be fun to see how they deal with the new movie timeline in this show,if they mention it at all and so on.

#330 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 27 November 2016 - 06:06 PM

Believe it or not,I actually know that,since I still follow any Trek news. Doesn't mean I can't hope they'll change their mind,lol!

Be fun to see how they deal with the new movie timeline in this show,if they mention it at all and so on.


If you seriously have any hope of the premise changing this far into production, you're going to be disappointed.

#331 robster

robster

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crapland....some call it Norway.

Posted 28 November 2016 - 12:27 AM

Well they changed from January to May so a lot can happen from now till May. LOL! But yeah,I seriously doubt thay'll change THAT bit.

 

And since this is a STB thread,I'm still curious as to how they'll acknowledge that alternate universe. Time travel perhaps? Would be kinda interesting to play around with that,although it does present it's own problems. But I'm sure they'll figure something out,lol!



#332 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 28 November 2016 - 04:54 PM

Well they changed from January to May so a lot can happen from now till May. LOL! But yeah,I seriously doubt thay'll change THAT bit.
 
And since this is a STB thread,I'm still curious as to how they'll acknowledge that alternate universe. Time travel perhaps? Would be kinda interesting to play around with that,although it does present it's own problems. But I'm sure they'll figure something out,lol!


I think they'll acknowledge it by making Star Trek Discovery very much in the same style as at least the aesthetic seen at the very beginning of Star Trek (2009) since the USS Kelvin is a prime universe ship. It's not beyond all realms of possibilty that we might see the USS Kelvin or the USS Franklin although the latter might be a bit far fetched. Perhaps we will see Captain Robau?

#333 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,413 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 28 November 2016 - 06:51 PM

I doubt they will reference the Kelvin timeline directly since they wouldn't know about it in the 23rd century. 

 

They could reference characters, or ships like the Kelvin or Robau, or even the Franklin. But they wouldn't be the same people as the Kelvin timeline. 

 

George Kirk was in Starfleet at this time wasn't he? Maybe we'll see/hear him mentioned. 



#334 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 28 November 2016 - 07:03 PM

I doubt they will reference the Kelvin timeline directly since they wouldn't know about it in the 23rd century. 
 
They could reference characters, or ships like the Kelvin or Robau, or even the Franklin. But they wouldn't be the same people as the Kelvin timeline. 
 
George Kirk was in Starlet at this time wasn't he? Maybe we'll see/hear him mentioned. 


Starlet? Sounds like a broadway or west end musical! Haha

It's likely that these things will be mentioned and referenced but I'm totally buying that the aesthetics of Discovery will take their que from the USS Kelvin.

#335 MisterPL

MisterPL

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2016 - 11:21 AM

I don't see the Kelvin timeline being mentioned on DSC since it won't have been created yet.

 

I have no idea what the aesthetic will be beyond using McQuarrie's concepts as springboards.

 

I'm kinda hoping for a story that has a rescue party from the Prime Universe searching for Ambassador Spock. He's kind of a big deal there. Seems like even a small group of people might be tenacious enough to find their way into the Kelvin timeline and at least bring back his remains. Maybe Picard's Eleven, with a team of old-timers and some new faces to jumpstart that timeline.

 

If Trek never returns to theaters, I'll be fine with it but I doubt Paramount will ever allow that to happen. As much as Trek's done well on television, the temptation to make more profit in cinemas is too great.



#336 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 29 November 2016 - 04:28 PM

If Trek never returns to theaters, I'll be fine with it but I doubt Paramount will ever allow that to happen. As much as Trek's done well on television, the temptation to make more profit in cinemas is too great.

You're probably right but they're going to have to find a way of doing a Star Trek movie on a tiny budget. I just can't see Paramount throwing money at Trek after the box office for Beyond.

Ultimately Paramount might want to do another Star Trek but in the end if the financials don't stack up, it won't happen. This is a cinematic series that needs a budget of over $120 million at least and only ever had BO returns drop, if PP are just looking at the figures for this Abrams franchise then it's hardly a promising outlook and no way a certainty that Paramount will want to risk the millions on making another only to make a loss.

#337 MisterPL

MisterPL

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 November 2016 - 08:58 AM

There have been Trek films that didn't break even at the box office (TFF) but what saved them was, as you'd agree, merchandising.

 

That's where Abrams' films have suffered. It isn't as noticeable because the first two flicks performed so well (on HUGE production budgets) but the lack of toys, apparel, et al from Beyond won't help its bottom line. Hopefully home video and other deals for streaming and television distribution will plant it firmly in the black but, yes, the next film will need either a smaller budget or a more toyetic story and a licensee willing to take a chance.



#338 Morgan

Morgan

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 664 posts

Posted 30 November 2016 - 08:11 PM

Why all the gloom and doom about the films?  Star Trek Beyond didn't do badly. With a budget of $185 mil it raked in $158 in domestic and $343 mil worldwide. The worldwide totals were the lowest of the 3 rebooted Trek films: first two brought in $385 and $467 mil worldwide, comparatively. (Yes: Into Darkness is the highest-grossing of the three somehow). "Not great Bob," but still not in the red.

 

As long as Trek films come close to doubling their budgets, the studio is probably not gonna quit them. If the franchise withstood the Wrath of Cumberbatch, it can withstand quite a bit more foolery.



#339 MisterPL

MisterPL

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 December 2016 - 08:46 AM

Hollywood films generally take 50% of the domestic (North American) box office, 40% of foreign sales, but only 25% in China (if the government allows it to screen there). The last I looked, Beyond brought in $158.8 million domestic, $119.4 million overseas with $65.2 million from China. The studio's take would be $79.4 million domestic, $47.8 million overseas with $16.3 million from China.

 

That means Beyond brought in $143.5 million for the studio against its $185 million production budget. That doesn't even factor in the typical multi-million dollar marketing budget.

 

For what it's worth, Into Darkness brought in $201.3 million for the studio against a reported $190 million budget while Abrams' first Trek brought in $178.7 million against its $150 million budget. Both those films made back their respective production budgets at the box office. Beyond didn't.

 

But like I said, it wouldn't be the first time.



#340 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 01 December 2016 - 02:54 PM

It wouldn't be the first time but I think times are different for Star Trek and for the studio. Paramount are in some trouble. They've not had a major motion picture hit in years and look to be in the process of some kind of significant internal shake up of which I'm not entirely familiar with the details. I do know CBS may be involved which will mean Star Trek is made whole again which will have an impact.

 

If Paramount are bought by another studio or another company or whatever happens at Paramount, it will effect what happens next with Star Trek on the big screen. I don't think its doom and gloom but I do think that we've probably come to the point where Star Trek doesn't suit these big summer blockbusting movie releases. 

 

Personally I think they had a real opportunity to expand the franchise with Abrams ambitions for it. Ultimately CBS didn't want that to happen and we are where we are with Star Trek; smaller, more niche, ideal for TV and perhaps the smaller budget movies that focus on one particular character.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users