229 replies to this topic

[Alteran195]

I'm a fan on the new movies, and its cast. I think casting wise they did a damn good job. 

 

I don't join fan clubs though. 

[Gothneo]

 

  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).

 

This is probably true of most action based movies. They are meant to be an "enjoy and forget" kind of thing. Of course, I'm sure they would like to tap into some zeitgeist and become a cultural phenomena, but seriously not many can make that accession. 
 

I doubt any Star Trek film to-date would make any list of best 100 movies of all time. Not that some aren't a truly good effort... and lots of fun... but there is just so much better... even if you limit it to just Sci-Fi... IMO... its tough to say Star Trek should break the top 25. So... yeah... I think I can name 25 Sci-Fi films better than any Star Trek movie... and I really like most of the trek movies!

[Whirlygig]

Agree 100% Gothneo.  I wouldn't put any Trek movie on the top 10 sci-fi movies of all time from a purely artistic/historic importance perspective, but maybe by the time we got to 25 I could squeeze one on there.  Now, on my *personal* top 10, I would definitely probably be able to fit at least one of them.  

[Morgan]

Totally fine if another movie with this cast doesn't get made. Tired of having to look past completely ridiculous premises and cartoonish sequences, as well as some pretty serious plot holes.

 

As somebody who grew up on TNG, DS9 and VOY it's just hard to watch and rationalize this stuff -- the first few times I saw the first JJ Abrams film it gave me ADD for not one but two days afterward. I keep having to remind myself that it's supposed to compete with these superhero flicks studios churn out on autopilot because they're (mostly) flop-proof.

 

It's like: 1 part Galaxy Quest, 1 part Marvel, 1 part Michael Bay filming an old TOS/X-Men comic book turned into storyboards.

 

#notsorry

[Gothneo]

I think I was actually a but confused  at my first viewing of ST 2009. I came away from it wondering why I didn't just love it and want to watch it again and again.... I really wanted that to be the case... but it just wasn't. 

 

I think the real truth is that truly incredible sci-fi movies that also become blockbusters are very very rare. For the most part the entire Star Wars Franchise has coasted on the power and success of the 1st two movies, and we keep going back hoping to re-ignite that kind of magic.

 

Then Hollywood takes  movies like BladeRunner and decides to make a sequel because you know that people will go to see it hoping it catches that lightning in a bottle that they loved about the original. I know I want to go back to that world... but some things are best left as is... and I suspect this is the case for Bladerunner. 

 

I'm also starting to think this is the case for Trek, Kirk / Spock / McCoy. We know their story... and what we don't know is best left to the imagination... To me this is why TNG or DS9 worked... we got to hear someone else story. 

[1701D]

These movies fail* because Star Trek is a TV Show.

the success of the classic movies was down to fans wanting to see Shatner and Nimoy on another adventure. The success of TNG's movies to a lesser extent for the very same reason.

Where Abrams has gone wrong, isn't so much down to his choice of characters or cast, it's that it's not a TV series and is set in an alternate universe where everything looks different; it asks fans to accept a radical departure from what they expect and it offers casual movie goers nothing they can't already get from the likes of Star Wars or Marvel movies.

The key to making a successful Star Trek movie lies with in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek: First Contact.

Those two movies take storylines from the original TV series and expand upon them via a character driven plot. They are low budget, highly character driven and they expand upon already popular Star Trek storylines.

Unfortunately there isn't the luxury of using classic actors to play these iconic roles. However, my pitch to Paramount/Bad Robot would be to change direction;

The next Star Trek movie made for $90 million, focused on Chris Hemsworth's George Kirk, begins where the 2009 movie begins. Except for there is no Narada, there is no death of Captain Robau or George T Kirk, the Kelvin makes it back to Earth and Kirk is born in Iowa. The look of the movie is iconic TOS, slightly modernised for the big screen and this movie is the beginning of a trilogy about the rise of James T. Kirk and based upon the novel written by David A. Goodman; The Autobiography of James T. Kirk.

You either use the current cast or recast the roles to fit the ages you need these characters to be, you are faithful to the established storyline For fans, while making something new fans can invest in, you build this iconic, heroic starfleet captain from the ground up by not having him save the world, but by showing his rise to command through friendships that will last the test of time, tragic loss that will haunt him forever and the grit and determination imbedded in him. You spend 3 movies telling that story with the climax being him getting the Enterprise -THE classic Enterprise, not a reimagined ship by the same name.

Let the movies be the guilty fan pleasures by faithfully recreating the TOS aesthetic and era and by telling the stories as they have been told in novels/off camera while being accessible to someone who doesn't know Star Trek. Essentially these are stories that are about interesting characters in the end. By focusing on one character (Kirk in this instance) you can instantly tie it to both timelines without having to explain it.

*for the record I like what they've done so far but they have failed in maintaining a decent box office haul. I think change has to happen to strengthen the brand, rather than having a piece meal approach and these stand alone movies that do nothing to further enhance the fan experience and fan enthusiasm for the franchise.

Paramount have instead gone after the Star Wars and Super Hero dollar and failed to capitalise on it by producing enjoyable Star Trek movies but not unforgettable Star Trek movies. Logan, Deadpool, The Wrath of Khan, First Contact, interstellar, The Martian, Gravity, Moon, Life and other movies that are driven by characters and not the spectacle of CGI are the key to the success of the Star Trek movie franchise.

In short; Star Trek: Anthologies.

[s8film40]

http://deadline.com/...ams-1202220032/

[VulcanFanatic]

I don't see anything involving Abrams as ever being real Trek. Will take some real convincing to get me to see another Trek film set in the Kelvin universe.

[s8film40]

I assume this will be like a reboot of a reboot. At this point it's so far removed from Star Trek it probably doesn't really matter. I really like Tarantino. This seems like a really bad mix, but it couldn't be any worse than the last three movies.

[MisterPL]

Now this is interesting.

 

Of course the trick will be giving Tarantino the creative freedom he wants. He's certainly proven to be successful directing an ensemble. Hopefully the writers can turn his pitch into a solid screenplay.

 

Optimism!

[1701D]

I mean its Quinten Tarantino? Yes fricken please!

Anyone of his standing should be welcomed into the Star Trek universe, it really could benefit from some great directors.

I cant see them carrying on with the Kelvin Timeline storyline, I think for all intents and purpose that ship has sailed.

Its possibly going to be a retelling of a classic episode? A moder adaptation of City on the Edge of Forever perhaps? Or Doomsday Machine?

That would be cool.

[s8film40]

Its possibly going to be a retelling of a classic episode? A moder adaptation of City on the Edge of Forever perhaps? Or Doomsday Machine?

That would be cool.

Or here's an idea, maybe something completely new and original. Star Trek is a vast world with so much potential. It's been so disappointing over the past several years watching the studios fall back on what they think is safe and comfortable rather than giving a new story a shot.

[MisterPL]

I cant see them carrying on with the Kelvin Timeline storyline, I think for all intents and purpose that ship has sailed.

Its possibly going to be a retelling of a classic episode? A moder adaptation of City on the Edge of Forever perhaps? Or Doomsday Machine?

 

The Kelvin Universe cast in a Prime Universe remake?

 

I don't see that going over well. We already got "Space Seed" 2.0 with Star Trek Into Darkness.

[Whirlygig]

I refuse to comment on the bonkers QT ST4 news until enough time has passed to determine whether the spaghetti has stuck to the wall.  Because I fully expect this to never materialize, and am praying to the Great Bird of the Galaxy that it does not.  I like QT films (generally) but I don't like the thought of a QT-verse AKA Trekantino.

[1701D]

 
The Kelvin Universe cast in a Prime Universe remake?
 
I don't see that going over well. We already got "Space Seed" 2.0 with Star Trek Into Darkness.

No I think itll be a new cast. I dont see anyone from the Kelvin Timeline being involved.

The fact is the Kelvin movies have been very divisive and with every movie have seen a decline in BO takings domestic and world wide.

This Im thinking would be a totally new Star Trek film - a stand alone movie or the beginning of a new series based upon an episode of Star Trek: TOS. Id imagine the same format James Bond uses with every movie, they dont tend to be sequels, they just tend to be great movies.

If it happens, what a great way to kick start the movie franchise with a great story and movie by QT.

The thought of Quinten Tarantino doing a Star Trek period movie set in the 23rd Century era of Kirk and Spock... an adaptation of City on the Edge of Forever, in the same way as the Bond movies have adapted the original Fleming novels, would be spectacular. His creativity and style is a perfect fit to Star Trek and I believe he is a big enough talent to be able to tell a Star Trek story that was true to the nature of Star Trek.

If you think about how dark City on the Edge of Forever is... its hugely dark! Kirk has to let the woman he loves die and if he adapts the original Harlan Ellison teleplay of that story... well that would be something incredible.

All we know though is that his idea has kick started Paramount and Abrams to setup a writers room. If he directs it then thats going to be incredible.

[Alteran195]

I’ve seen people mention that he said Yesterday’s Enterprise would have made a good movie, so we could see something like it.

I know there were mentions of bringing back George Kirk, so maybe we’ll get the Kelvin coming across the Enterprise. It could even be cross universe, with it being the Kelvin coming across from the Prime Timeline so there wouldn’t be any change in the Kelvin Universe, but still have some dilemma with sending the Kelvin back.

[robster]

1701D - Try spelling his name again,I dare ya! LOL!!!!!

 

Just gimme some new Trek movies,don't care who makes'em!

[1701D]

Why does a new movie have to link to anything?

He did mention that Yesterdays Enterprise was one of his favourite episodes of Star Trek but that he preferred TOS over TNG.

He also said that he enjoyed Abrams first Star Trek movie but didnt like Into Darkness. So this is where the biggest clue came from when hypothetically speaking about what he would of done if tasked with reviving Star Trek; he said that hed never have created an alternate reality, because theres so many great concepts and stories in TOS already, he continued by saying that the only thing holding it back was time and money so I dont see the idea Tarantino has as being based upon any kind of sequel to Beyond or prequel to Abrams Star Trek movie.

I think this is going to be a revival of Trek movies and that might involve them being more like period pieces that look like the original series and his idea being something that is an original series story like City on the Edge of Forever and then developed into a very period specific movie.

I think perhaps the James Bond concept, where each movie is its own story, based upon a novel and not linked to one another but for a few threads that continue over from film to film is perhaps a good way to go with Star Trek.

When we look at how TOS was structured, it was episodic TV. There was no thread that continued from episode to episode, these were very stand alone stories and I think if youre going to do Star Trek on the big screen, why not do something stand alone? Especially if Tarantino is going to direct! A movie based upon a Gene Roddenberry original episode.

[1701D]

This is what Tarantino said about Star Trek;

https://youtu.be/rzNnfKT6IrM

This gives you some flavour at what he may do with Star Trek and honestly, I think its the course correction the Star Trek movie universe needs. Cummerbund was not Khan...

[MisterPL]

This is what Tarantino said about Star Trek;

https://youtu.be/rzNnfKT6IrM

This gives you some flavour at what he may do with Star Trek and honestly, I think its the course correction the Star Trek movie universe needs. Cummerbund was not Khan...

 

 

Cumberbatch should have stayed John Harrison with Khan revealed in a cryo-tube at the end of the picture.

 

According to that interview, Tarantino likes the new cast so it's pretty doubtful he'd replace them. I sincerely doubt Paramount would choose to replace them either (with the obvious exception of Anton Yelchin). The whole point of creating a different timeline was to be able to use characters from TOS. The groundwork for what you want to see has already been laid. Unfortunately, thanks to Into Darkness, it's also proven to have its drawbacks.

 

I'm fine seeing the current cast have new adventures. I was pretty happy with Star Trek Beyond. Had Into Darkness not driven away general audiences and had Beyond cost a bit less to produce, it would have been more profitable.

 

Another note of interest; Tarantino seems to want to move away from an ensemble cast. This is a guy who has made his mark with ensemble films but when he talks Star Trek, he implies he want to make a Kirk & Spock movie. That seemed to be the downfall of the Next Generation films, a focus on Picard and Data. Hopefully the writers can do each character justice anyway.

 

The obvious question about a Tarantino Star Trek film is who would Samuel L. Jackson play?