Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek 4 (14)


  • Please log in to reply
183 replies to this topic

#21 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 13 February 2017 - 03:10 PM

By the end of the 20th century, the fanbase was literally dying off. Even The Next Generation era, which introduced the franchise to a younger audience, wasn't enough to keep the films going. These three new films attracted a broader audience but it remains to be seen if those audiences care about the characters and not just the spectacle.

 

I have to wonder how Gravity, Interstellar, or The Martian might have performed with a suffix like "A Star Trek Story" attached to the title. Would they have attracted fewer moviegoers because it's Trek? Or more because it's not Matt Damon trying to survive a hostile planet but Simon Pegg's Scotty? Or Karl Urban's McCoy floating around in space instead of Sandra Bullock? Would Arrival have performed better with Zoe Saldana's Uhura making first contact instead of Amy Adams?

 

Is there a large enough audience for intimate, modestly budgeted, character-driven Trek films?

 

Yeah I think there is a large enough audience for a Star Trek movie to follow a number of formats - I think that is the success of Star Trek, it is a fundamentally very open, broad and flexible idea. I mean who would have thought back in 2002 when Nemesis launched that 7 years later after the franchise was only going further into oblivion, that Paramount would spend $150 million on Star Trek and make a massive success of it. 

 

I think we have to look at why that first movie was such a success. I think 2009 worked because it changed the status quo whilst being faithful to what people remember Star Trek being. It offered up something absolutely refreshing to people who had just switched off. I think there is a huge fan base out there that simply fell asleep during Voyager and Enterprise and Insurrection and Nemesis because nothing was being changed, Star Trek was operating within this ever shrinking box that only few fans would really appreciate and understand.

 

Along comes Abrams and just smashes that box open and does something with Star Trek, inspired by his love of Star Wars, that revolutionised and gave this franchise so much more room to breath and to create new and exciting stories. Where Abrams kind of failed was by undoing all of the work Star Trek did so brilliantly by going back to the familiar Star Trek tropes - Khan, this time Kirk dies, Spock lives, Spock shouts KHAAAAAN! Its a bit like you leave the theatre sighing rather than wanting more. 

 

Into Darkness I still think is actually a very good movie with a lot of heavy, relevant themes running through it and ultimately the movie succeeds up until Khan does what we all expect Khan to do. Admiral Marcus was the bad guy in that movie and I think what would have been good is if by the end of Into Darkness, whilst they still had to detain Khan, It was the fact that Admiral Marcus wanted to militarise Starfleet and aggressively assert his idea of what he felt Starfleet should evolve into. Khan could of been a Section 31 defector... But I think studios were looking for their Joker and Dark Knight and Star Trek Into Darkness was born with Khan.  

 

I think the lack of success Beyond had was really down to the reaction Into Darkness got rather than the quality of Into Darkness as a film. But even so, Beyond wasn't anything like the first movie, it played it very safe by returning Star Trek to familiar territory and when you've made such a point of making things different, only to return to what is familiar three movies in, you kind of loose that new audience you'd impressed in 2009.

 

I mean I think they've really made this a lot more difficult than it should of been, they should of done something so radical and turned Star Trek on its head after the 2009 movie all the while remaining faithful to the point of Trek.

 

I think with Star Trek 4, they need to again break the mould. Do something unexpected. With the 2009 movie, it was such a brazen movie from start to finish, they give Spock and Uhura a relationship and blow up Vulcan! I mean who does that! Thats f*cking ballsy! Thats what Star Trek needed and needs again. What you do to break the mould with Star Trek once more, who knows, but I think the important thing is to give fan criticism very little attention and do something with Star Trek that shocks people but in a very good, pleasing way. This can't be Star Trek 4: The movie where everyone dies or where the Earth blows up. This has to be something that when you leave the movie theatres you turn to your friends, wife, girlfriend and you both come out hugely satisfied and mind blown. I think Bad Robot can do it, I trust in their ability to make a decent Star Trek movie, I just hope it doesn't play it safe and doesn't rely on what we already know Star Trek to be. It needs to bring something new to the table.



#22 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:53 PM

I have to wonder how Gravity, Interstellar, or The Martian might have performed with a suffix like "A Star Trek Story" attached to the title. Would they have attracted fewer moviegoers because it's Trek? Or more because it's not Matt Damon trying to survive a hostile planet but Simon Pegg's Scotty? Or Karl Urban's McCoy floating around in space instead of Sandra Bullock? Would Arrival have performed better with Zoe Saldana's Uhura making first contact instead of Amy Adams?

 

Basically I see these as Star Trek Stories. All of these would have worked fine set in a federation context. A remote maintenance crew encounters disaster and fights for life... A terra forming mission gone wrong.... a first contact molds the future...  They don't need the defining TOS crew... tell new stories!

 

1701D... I still think Abrams is a hack. Rouge One showed me even Star Wars is better w/o him. But thats my opinion. ST 2009 was flawed, but not to the point it disenfranchised me. STITD did that. All I wanted was new fresh story telling in an optimistic space operatic format. All the movies MisterPL mentioned accomplished that. 



#23 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 14 February 2017 - 06:59 PM

I think somewhere Star Trek became something different to the original series but then I think a lot of people believe that TOS is Star Trek?

I think MisterPL beautifully summed it up in another topic by saying the following;

The movies forced a new series to introduce a totally new crew in a new future era. From then on fans had their favorite show; TNG, DS9, VOY, or even ENT. The more spinoffs, the more fragmented the fanbase became. But there was one thing no one could deny; the original crew was Star Trek, and even though the actors were aging, it was foolish to bury those most popular characters with the performers who helped create them. It was going to take Kirk and his Enterprise to save Star Trek and that's what Abrams delivered.


I mean I think the original is what Star Trek "is" and I think through the spinoff series that got diluted somewhat into something Star Trek wasn't?

As for Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian. I'm not sure they're Star Trek stories in the sense that they're not hopeful or optimistic or saying the same things a Star Trek story should say about society.

Trek was Wagon Train in Space, I can't see that in those movies. I can see that in 2009 and Beyond.

But it would be good to see a Star Trek movie in the vein of The Martian in that it was more character driven than big sci fi action adventure.

#24 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 February 2017 - 08:50 PM

All those movies had a type of enduring human spirt optimism about them, and they certainly did say something about society. I don't see how something like interstellar was all that different from TNGs Inner Light... which I thought was a a fantastic episode.

 

ST 2009 and Beyond aren't bad movies, I just don't enjoy watching them again and again. I can watch interstellar or The Martian at the drop of pin. Gravity I find a bit more flawed, but visually its stunning. I'm looking forward to watching Arrival again now that its out on Red Box. 

 

I just think MisterPL has the right idea which is Star Trek could really try and think out of the box and do something that is "A Star Trek Adventure"... after all wasn't that what DS9 really was? I guess I'm optimistic we'll get that for Discovery... but if your quote is right... if Star Trek doesn't really extend beyond Kirk and the Enterprise, then Discovery is doomed already and the studio must either continue the path its on... or reboot again and start over with a new Kirk, Enterprise and crew. 

 

Analogous... in a galaxy far far away... I've though Star Wars suffered because it, seemingly, can't get past the Skywalker family, which is why Rouge One was refreshing... but the next couple movies are certainly (still) all about the skywalkers. Pretty small galaxy far far away :-)



#25 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 14 February 2017 - 11:56 PM

All those movies had a type of enduring human spirt optimism about them, and they certainly did say something about society. I don't see how something like interstellar was all that different from TNGs Inner Light... which I thought was a a fantastic episode.

True. But again the further Star Trek got from Kirk and Spock's Star Trek (and by that I mean the kind of stories TOS was telling and the manner in which they told them) the more it suffered at being what many consider Star Trek. The Inner Light was superb but would it of worked as an episode of the original series? I'm not sure? But then again, Star Trek is a lot of things to a lot of people... it's hard to settle on one thing that defines Star Trek. Therein lies the problem with Star Trek as well as the beauty of it.
 

ST 2009 and Beyond aren't bad movies, I just don't enjoy watching them again and again. I can watch interstellar or The Martian at the drop of pin. Gravity I find a bit more flawed, but visually its stunning. I'm looking forward to watching Arrival again now that its out on Red Box.

I mean I think Star Trek 2009 returned Star Trek to the pace of the original series albeit on a larger budget. I think returning to Kirk and Spock and starting again essentially allowed the writers the freedoms to change a lot of things in order to update Star Trek for a modern audience. I think also the fact that Star Trek is a billion dollar franchise and not a one time sci fi movie like Interstellar or The Martian were has a lot to do with it. No one is really screaming for sequels to either of those movies and nor should people.
 

I just think MisterPL has the right idea which is Star Trek could really try and think out of the box and do something that is "A Star Trek Adventure"... after all wasn't that what DS9 really was? I guess I'm optimistic we'll get that for Discovery... but if your quote is right... if Star Trek doesn't really extend beyond Kirk and the Enterprise, then Discovery is doomed already and the studio must either continue the path its on... or reboot again and start over with a new Kirk, Enterprise and crew.

I think with the 2009 movie, a lot of that was about breaking down the walls to allow new audiences to gain access to Star Trek but it did some pretty out of the box stuff too. The very notion of starting with Kirk and Spock again was pretty out of the box, an alternate timeline and of course, the destruction of Vulcan.

I think with the help of the new movies, CBS are free to expand upon them using new characters. Although this is supposedly set in the prime timeline, it's never been mentioned again so I think this will be a series that could of easily taken place in the Kelvin Timeline. There's also a reason this is set only 10 years prior to Kirk and co onboard the Enterprise. It's the Kirk and Spock factor. At any point CBS could introduce those characters into Discovery. Sarek is already a part of the series too so it ties more closely to the Kirk and Spock era of Star Trek and with good reason, Star Trek is those characters. Just as Star Wars is Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker.
 

Analogous... in a galaxy far far away... I've though Star Wars suffered because it, seemingly, can't get past the Skywalker family, which is why Rouge One was refreshing... but the next couple movies are certainly (still) all about the skywalkers. Pretty small galaxy far far away :-)

But look at how expansive the Star Wars galaxy has become. It may be only about the Skywalkers and all roads seem to lead to the OT but they've made that universe seem vast! Abrams has helped create a Star Trek that has the potential to be as expansive a universe but at the same time focused it on the characters that resonate with the most people (fans and non fans). Will Discovery capitalise on that? I hope so. I think Discovery will be Star Trek's rogue one.

The ingredients are there for Star Trek to expand its universe, it's up to cbs and paramount as to whether or not they exploit it well enough.

#26 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 February 2017 - 03:46 AM

lets just both continue to be optimistic!



#27 Alex

Alex

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 885 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 06:35 PM

 

Well, I was following you until this part.  From where I was standing all year it was a pretty good year for those.  Maybe not according to the bean counters and executives, and lets just pretend the DC universe doesn't exist...  But I think the general public enjoyed most of them and there are "legs" on those properties growing out of the movies that perhaps nobody has fully realized yet.

Whirlygig, I was honestly speaking largely in the context of executives and bean counters who determine whether or not to sink a small fortune into these films. However, I should note that if the numbers are down across the board as they were for most of 2016, that's a trend that says people aren't seeing these sequels and spin–offs for some reason. Look, I loved Allegiant, which was arguably 2016's first casualty in this category, but it really was the best film that nobody bothered to see. Like almost every other sequel or spin-off, it played primarily to empty seats in a theater that's usually packed last year. The DC universe has its own issues, true, but it was also effected by this, and the general disdain surrounding "Ms. Ghostbusters" was about a quarter misogyny to three quarters protest of the latest reboot cash–in attempt that seemed to hit on everything people typically disliked about reboots as a whole. (Probe deeper into what people hate about that film and it's not female Ghostbusters, it's female Ghostbusters as a gimmick and a reboot rather than a sequel for the sake of having female Ghostbusters as a gimmick, and a gimmick that doubles down on a flaw of the original films and tries to sell it as something different.) Having said that, some of 2016's movies might have legs, including the aforementioned "Ghostbusters '16," but if they do, that'll become more apparent with the films out of theaters.

 

The reason Beyond failed is because it's marketing was garbage, plain and simple.

The first trailer was such a massive turn off to Trek fans that they just shot themselves in the foot from the get go. They then completely spoiled the plot with the other trailers.

Beyond is the best of the Kelvin movies, and Paramount screwed it up with its horrid marketing.

I largely agree with you Alteran, but I think the marketing was only part of what hurt Beyond, with the general fact that people just weren't showing up for this sort of film by the numbers that they did in previous years also playing a part. Granted, if you hated STID and were already sick of the Kelvin Timeline, the first trailer for "Beyond" was pretty much a reason not to even bother giving the film a second thought. Paramount would have honestly done better just playing 30 seconds of "Sabotage" in context, and they would have gotten a far better reaction. That trailer was an insult to the intelligence of Trek fans, and I still say it should have been a TV trailer done as a nod to Justin Lin as a public "in joke" after a more Trek-ish trailer or two had been released.



#28 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 06:57 AM

Alex, I agree.

#29 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,248 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:08 AM

The cinemascape has been DST-ified.  If it ain't Marvel, it won't sell.



#30 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 22 February 2017 - 02:48 AM

well.... DC sells too... its arguable if its as good of product as what Marvel Studios is putting out, but the basic appetite seems to be for the super hero genre. 



#31 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 22 February 2017 - 06:18 AM

Brad Grey, Paramount CEO has resigned. Whoever comes in to replace him may see no interest in Star Trek and therefore pull the plug on it. Then we also have the relationship between Bad Robot and Paramount. Between Abrams and Grey it always seemed productive but an incoming CEO may not feel the same which would also put the kybosh on any future Star Trek Kelvin Timeline movie as BR are investors in that piece of Star Trek.

It's a mess for sure over at Paramount and anyone looking at Star Trek will need to love the brand because the numbers don't look good compared to their Transformers and MI franchises...

#32 MisterPL

MisterPL

    I know FHC by name.

  • Members
  • 528 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2017 - 09:53 AM

Variety counts Star Trek as one of Grey's successes, despite the performance of Beyond:

 

"On his watch, Paramount succeeded with tentpole franchises including “Transformers,” “Star Trek” and “Mission: Impossible,” but suffered costly misses with a string of flops including “Ben-Hur,” “Allied,” “Zoolander 2,” “Monster Trucks” and “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.” Paramount’s film output has shrunk dramatically in the past five years, and the studio posted a loss of $180 million during the most recent fiscal quarter and red ink of about $450 million for Viacom’s 2016 fiscal year."

 

Maybe we'll get a Kelvin Universe Next Generation feature film reboot under the new studio head.



#33 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 23 February 2017 - 05:47 PM

I wonder if this could all end up with Star Trek returning fully to CBS? I think it's fascinating stuff. I think Abrams certainly holds a lot of weight in regards to these movies. I'd imagine there is some financial element to these new movies between Paramount, Bad Robot, Skydance...

I guess the likelyhood is for a new studio head to pump more money into developing Star Trek for Paramount. I don't know if this could perhaps lead to an animated series?

I'm not sure where Paramounts rights to Trek end and CBS's pick up? Could Paramount produce an animated Star Trek series like their TMNT series? Who knows.

Where does the bad blood between Paramount and CBS come from because that's another thing that could change resulting in a more unified cooperative approach to Star Trek projects?

#34 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:10 PM

So... a bit of good news bad news IMO.

 

http://trekmovie.com...udes-star-trek/

 

Good news to me is Trek is still regarded as a tentpole property by the Viacom CEO.

 

Bad news is thats the guy that was in charge of Paramount and got in the Hack Trifecta of Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci :P  



#35 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:21 PM

Wouldn't really say Abrams is a hack. 

 

People may not have liked his Trek movies, but outside of Trek and possibly Star Wars, he's made some good stuff. 



#36 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:55 PM

Just my opinion :-) I don't care for much of anything he's directed. 



#37 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:23 PM

Other than Trek and Star Wars, the only movie I've seen that I know he's directed is Super 8, which I really liked.

I know he was involved with Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane, both of which I really enjoyed.

He's an executive producer on Westworld, which is amazing.

He's apparently also working on a sci-fi drama for HBO, Glare, which sounds interesting.

https://www.google.c...1201938232/amp/

Never really cared for Lost or Mission Impossible, or Fringe.

#38 1701D

1701D

    Dances with Toys

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

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:26 PM

Great news really and it's great that it seems like Bad Robot are sticking by Star Trek too as well since the new guy at Paramount was a huge champion of Abrams bringing Star Trek back in 2009.

Can only mean good things for Star Trek.

Paramount are in such a mess though. They just can't seem to make anything work. Even Beyond which was a decent movie was completely let down by Paramount not doing enough with the franchise back in 2009.

If Star Trek though was a bit of a challenge to do anything with because of the CBS factor. They've managed to really screw up TMNT, Transformers... I look at Paramount and I'm embarrassed for them. This the oldest studio in Hollywood has just become the place where generic movies are made, normally with Michael Bay involved.

I really hope they're able to turn it around because they've got a good thing going with Bad Robot; the Star Trek and MI movies are made to a good standard despite what a few may think about Abrams Star Trek movies, and they've got some great properties. They've just got to make those properties less generic and glossy and more important and faithful to the original characters and do more with all of their properties! I still don't know why we've not got a Star Trek: Animated series set in the Kelvin Timeline on Netflix or Nickelodeon - not sure if CBS have to have a say in that but something like that would work well as a companion piece to the Kelvin movies and comic books.

I also don't think they've done enough with the classic movies Paramount have made. They've got some amazing classics that could be beautifully remade faithfully and with the right director. They've got a full 10 classic Star Trek movies too, only one of which ever got a proper conversion to Blu Ray (Wrath of Khan). Why not pull a bit of a PR stunt and have Shatner back to do a directors cut of Final Frontier - remastered for blu ray. What about Frakes and John Logan doing a directors/writers cut of Nemesis? So much good stuff from that film was left on the cutting room floor by that actual hack - Stuart Baird.

#39 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 16 March 2017 - 01:57 AM

He's def got more producer credits than directing credits, and I've only seen 1 episode of west world, which I liked (I don't have HBO so I have to wait for DVD). Of his writing credits, probably the standouts for me are Armageddon and The Force Awakens, which are entertaining... but nothing ground breaking... most of his awards are for lost, which I don't care for. 

 

Anyhow, I digress, the positive point of that article is that a 4th movie is likely since the new Viacom CEO still seems to have faith in the the franchise. 

 

where it'll get taken is anyones guess. Sounds like some of the cast is getting busy!

 

“We’re making Avatar 2, 3, 4 and 5. It’s an epic undertaking,” and adding that that it will be his main focus for the next eight years. This will likely tie up a lot of Saldana’s time during that period and be a factor in any new Trek film that wants to include her in a major role.

 

I'm guessing that we will see more modest budgeted efforts as...

 

 

But before Paramount starts spending any more money, they have some financial issues to deal with.

 

With the death of Yelchin, Salandra being tied up, They either need to replace the cast members, or try and go a direction with a smaller cast.... or I guess reboot it all again! 

 

I like the idea of a smaller cast... quite honestly I don't think Cho's Sulu was allowed to shine... I like Cho... in fact I like most of the current cast, but I just think a smaller cast might work better. Maybe a story with Pine, Quinto and Urban... For me... Urban has been the standout in the franchise reboot anyhow. 



#40 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 3,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 16 March 2017 - 05:16 AM

What they could have done with the 4th movie was show a small number of the cast being moved to a different ship while the A was being built, and have them get the A at the end of the movie like in... Star Trek 4.

But they already gave them the A, and the comics are covering that time.

I wouldn't mind a smaller, character focused story.

I still can't believe they're making that many more Avatar movies.... We'll see if it still happens after the second one, which I really doubt will be nearly as successful as the first.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users