Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek 4 (14)


  • Please log in to reply
226 replies to this topic

#41 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 16 March 2017 - 08:28 AM

I loved Jaylah. I think she's definitely someone I'd like to see back. I guess as long as Kirk, Spock and McCoy are there. Simon Pegg seems to be willing? And then you could replace the characters of Uhura, Checkov and Sulu perhaps with new characters, allowing this franchise to go its own way from TOS? Keeping it diverse but different. I don't see a problem with these Kelvin movies being something different from TOS.

I think though Saldana would do it if her schedule allowed as would the rest of the cast.

I wonder if Abrams will be back on as director?

The biggest problems Star Trek on the big screen (small screen I think it will do fine) faces and the fact that Paramount are determined to make a tentpole out of it, is how do you go from where you are now - not making bad money but not doing what other tent poles do - how do you take Star Trek and get people excited about it the way people are excited about DC movies, which have been really badly received yet maintain that popularity and excitement for more, better, DC movies.

#42 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 16 March 2017 - 02:07 PM

Alteran195,

 

Probably what they will do with avatar is shoot a whole mess 1st, then like the LTR trilogy, spend time post producing and chunking them out 1 per year... but I agree... thats a lot of movies... and as compelling as the original was I don't know how interested I will be in the 2nd, let alone 5 more!

 

In regards to Trek 4... are you saying they are already running into "cannon" issues due to the comics?? because if so thats hilarious!  Reboot! ;-)



#43 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

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

Posted 16 March 2017 - 03:30 PM

No, there was, or is, a comic series talking about what the crew did during the construction of the Enterprise A. Kirk went to a new ship temporarily with a couple of the Enterprise crew. 

 

I just figured that could have been an interesting movie idea, and given them a chance to introduce new characters to go along with a couple we already knew. 



#44 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 16 March 2017 - 09:29 PM

Yeah the comics have sort of tied up that story arc of them being elsewhere while they build the Enterprise A. Not sure what the next issue will deal with but the last issue was about Jaylah.

Maybe Star Trek 4 will be a soft reboot of the series? Maybe the reason they're going back to Chris Hemsworth is to have him live and tie the timelines together so that these new movies could become movies for the Discovery cast in the end?

#45 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 16 March 2017 - 11:43 PM

Gotcha.

For the longest time trek movies bounced between all out action fun and more serious or a bit more dramatic. They had success with both. TWOK was more action oriented, while TVH was more dialog and a bit more dramatic.

I think your suggestion would swing the movie franchise back from full on action... Which I think would be fine. As always it's about telling a good compelling original story.

#46 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 17 March 2017 - 09:53 PM

I'm just spit balling here but maybe the Shinzu from Star Trek: Discovery is from the Kelvin timeline. At a point in that timeline that is beyond even Kirk and Co. we know (from Trekyards) that the Shinzu is a gigantic ship which would fit into the larger ship sizes in the Kelvin Timeline.

From whatever the Shinzu does in the Prime Timeline could then leave Star Trek 4 to somehow tell a story about how Kirk and co. alter the Kelvin Timeline by saving Kirks Dad?

Or maybe the Star Trek 4 pitch isn't about Kirk and Spock but about Captain Robau and George Kirk? And maybe the events of the 2009 movie are altered by the events of Discovery and more specifically, the USS Shinzu - changing the course of that timeline making Star Trek Discovery a series set in both timelines?

Or Trek 4 could be a stand alone movie like the DCU where the TV series and movies are totally separate entities? Which is maybe more likely.

I just don't see any other reason for Kirk to travel back in time to save his dad other than to change the course of history - to correct the timelines to save Vulcan? To go back for the hell of it seems a bit ridiculous, there has to be a reason for Kirk to risk himself and his crew to save his fathers life?

I mean maybe Kirk sees the Kelvin Timeline begin to deteriorate? Maybe in this timeline the utopian society hasn't really happened and maybe as a result of Marcus starting a war with the Klingons, everyone he cares for die onboard the Enterprise; Checkov, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, McCoy, Spock... and knowing how many people have died because of this divergence in the timeline by Nero - an entire planet, his crew, his family, his father, Pike... he is given the opportunity to go back in time to save everyone he cares for as well as an entire race of people by understanding that by saving his fathers life he restores everything back to the Prime Timeline?

And with the Kelvin Timeline no more (or at least identical to the Prime Timeline), Chris Pine's Kirk and Quinto's Spock aren't Kelvin Timeline versions of themselves but Prime Timeline versions of those characters (just recast for obvious reasons) or perhaps by saving Kirks dad, the two timelines mesh and create a hybrid timeline which would explain the aesthetic differences on Discovery? I mean all of this is out there but surely there's a genuine, plausible reason for Kirk to save his dad, it can't just be hey crew, we're going back in time to save my father!

#47 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:50 AM

Oh my days... I've just thought about why they'd want to go back to George Kirk!

James Kirk saves George Kirk and the result is Star Trek: Discovery; creating a hybrid timeline that forges both Prime and Kelvin together creating one Timeline

#48 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

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

Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:43 AM

I'd be very surprised if a movie coming out in 2-3 years will be used to set up a TV show coming out this year. 



#49 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:09 PM

Star Trek 4 isn't even in any kind of pre-production... how could it be used to set up anything comping out this year? I guess I don't follow ?



#50 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:22 PM

Things don't have to be in cronological order.

We might learn that a part of Discovery is actually set in the Kelvin Timeline or that it's linked in a way that will be explained from the Kelvin timeline point of view in the next movie.

I'm just coming up with ideas as to why Kirk would have to go back in time to see his dad, unless it's not a time travel story and Chris Hemsworth is playing the lead and they reset the timeline by not killing him - which could then explain after discovery has aired, why discovery looks different to TOS.

This could be a kind of soft reboot of the movie series to tie itself into the new series. I could see that being the case.

But I could also see it being two separate entities; film and tv separate universes never to cross over.

One thing that I think many have assumed is still the truth is that the fact that it was only Bryan Fuller that said this new series is prime timeline Trek... but also said this could of been a series set in either timelines... was that a clue?

#51 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:05 AM

I'm gonna be very surprised if this 4th Kirk-based movie in the JJverse ever actually materializes.  There are many factors working against it, all of which should be obvious enough that we here do not need to re-state them for each other.

 

And if it's just going to be another Kirk-as-Christ-figure, navel-gazing-with-dad, fate of the universe rests on super-human Kirk outing, all for the better if it does not!   :P



#52 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:09 PM

I'm gonna be very surprised if this 4th Kirk-based movie in the JJverse ever actually materializes.  There are many factors working against it, all of which should be obvious enough that we here do not need to re-state them for each other.


You know what... I agree with you.

I think it's very unlikely that we'll ever see a sequel to Star Trek Beyond. Not because the cast are doing other things (although they are but not impossible to schedule around) but because of the financial situation Paramount find themselves in right now.

I will say this, Paramount and Bad Robot will do another Star Trek movie, I think though that we may see a USS Kelvin movie with Chris Hemsworth not dying and changing the course of history. A soft reboot of the series and maybe Pine and Quinto as cameos.

#53 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:27 PM

I think there will be a follow up... but if not another JJ verse movie... then aren't we left with another reboot? Unless they want to go the route of Star Wars and just do more original stuff with the preface "A Star Trek Story:"



#54 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:58 AM

I'd say if there is a follow up between Beyond and distant "Future Film Somehow Arising From/Based On/Related To Discovery And/Or Discovery Events/Timeline/Characters" it will probably be JJverse & Kirk -- they don't seem creative enough, or risk-taking enough, to do anything otherwise.  I just wonder if there is enough time in that gap I mentioned for it all to come together given the info I have right now, and given that it also seems possible Discovery could nosedive before having a chance to complete a good run.  If Discovery tanks I'd guess whatever film follows the tanking would be some kind of reboot/reimagining.



#55 MisterPL

MisterPL

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 875 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2017 - 09:25 AM

I'll be surprised if they don't jump to the future and offer their take on the Next Generation era. According to the Prime timeline, Kirk was 72 when Picard was born. I can see that timeline being truncated enough that an Ensign Picard shares screen time with Kirk's older crew.



#56 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:34 PM

I'd be amazed if they went to do TNG. never say never but under Abrams and Bad Robot? Time and time again I've heard Abrams say that he believes that Star Trek IS Kirk & Spock so I don't think that moving away from that 23rd century Kirk/Spock era is going to happen anytime soon, if at all.

#57 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

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

Posted 22 March 2017 - 04:50 PM

I think one o the things that worked for the TOS movies, is that the fan base aged with the cast and enjoyed "catching up" with them. I dunno if that will be true of JJ verse as people just aren't that emotionally invested... will we want to see Pine, Quinto and such when they are 60 or 70???



#58 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 22 March 2017 - 07:07 PM

I dunno, has any of the Star Trek casts maintained the care and devotion of fans that the original cast have kept?

Sure fans have come into the franchise at different points of its existence but it seems that regardless of that, the fans mostly care about what happened 50 years ago on Star Trek.

And why not. With every step, every shot, every word spoken to camera those guys were breaking new ground. Not just in film making but in helping to change the world.

There is nothing like that Star Trek series. There was nothing like it before it and hasn't been anything like it since and that includes every single Star Trek spin off series, including the TNG and the new Kelvin Timeline movies too - while TNG came the closest to being just as important, it hasn't maintained that same care and devotion the original has and I don't think as many people are wanting to see an older TNG crew back as they were with the TOS crew in the 80's.

Discovery is the right way to go with the franchise and I think if I were JJ Abrams I would be talking to my buddy Alex Kurtzman about how his movies can tie closer into what Kurtzman is doing with Discovery. Pine and Quinto won't command the level of care from fans as Shatner and Nimoy do - Shatner and Nimoy are untouchable in that regard - that series is something no Star Trek can ever surpass in cultural significance and impact but they could play an important part in engaging with new fans on an important and relevant level as long as these movies begin to tie into the larger legacy of Star Trek. Only if that is done will Pine's Kirk, Quinto's Spock and the others begin to hold relevance and the attention of the fans because at the moment we aren't seeing them enough to care about the characters they play brilliantly well.

#59 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:13 AM

Time and time again I've heard Abrams say that he believes that Star Trek IS Kirk & Spock

 

That's a self-admitted non-fan offering their take.  To the general public, he may have been right at one point, perhaps even back in 2007/8/9 as they developed the first film, but here we are nearly a decade later.  I no longer think he can be so bold about that in the general public, as people who thought that we have died and people who strongly identify with TNG have aged and increased their disposable incomes and influence.  I *never* thought he was 100% right about that as far as within the Trek community.

 

I dunno, has any of the Star Trek casts maintained the care and devotion of fans that the original cast have kept?

 

Yes.  TNG.  We just haven't had as much chance to catch up with them, and after the same lengths of time as the TOS movies, so you have no comparable examples to point to there.  But you have plenty of evidence of long term fan devotion if you are paying any attention to the convention circuit and just general love of Patrick Stewart, Wil Wheaton, and more.  People younger than us likely think Patrick is Professor X.  But everyone older than 30 *in the US* knows he is and always will have been Captain Picard first and foremost.

 

TOS had Spock, Spock was the breakout character besides Kirk that really became a pop culture icon, just the thought of such a stoic, logical character but portrayed as still somewhat human who you could sympathize with and root for was a fresh idea at the time.  I would say more of the people JJ is talking about think Star Trek is Spock than think Star Trek is Kirk.  Or at least equal parts.

 

The first inclination for TNG is to say the non-captain breakout character is Spock's equivalent, Data -- and Data *was* quite popular.  But I almost think maybe the one that permeated better into the larger pop culture world was Worf.  Worf made "Klingon" a household word, and IS what people think of when they think Klingon, and when people think Star Trek they also think Klingon.  He was stoic, too, and a bit more alien than Data, which we had seen before as Spock.

 

So I would think something to do with Worf and Picard for sure could scream "this is Star Trek" to everyone still alive and breathing and visiting cinemas.  But I don't think a young Picard would be as interesting of a character as a young Kirk.  Kirk's leadership style and instincts were pretty adolescent, so the character works best as a youthful character, and the character regretted ageing.  Picard's leadership was more sage elder, and showed no signs of age regret.  And his commanding, logical, cool-headed and collected way of leading was iconic in its own way, but a young Picard character wouldn't exactly exhibit that quality believably.

 

Anyway...

 

I find it highly unlikely as well that they would attempt to prequelize/reboot/whatever TNG with new actors, but, I'm not so quick as you are to dismiss that it could work if done right.



#60 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:22 AM

I think one o the things that worked for the TOS movies, is that the fan base aged with the cast and enjoyed "catching up" with them. I dunno if that will be true of JJ verse as people just aren't that emotionally invested... will we want to see Pine, Quinto and such when they are 60 or 70???

 

I don't even want to see them as whatever age they are now, lol.   :D  But apparently I'm not the "fan base" for their Trek.  And I'm not sure there is that fan base, TBH, are you?  I know 1701D is the head of that fan club but I need a count on his membership.  I think most of the people buying tickets to these movies (after subtracting people who just go to movies because it's something to do and more or less forget about it a week later), especially the 3rd one, are people like us still hoping the old Trek will show up.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users