4th Star Trek movie officially announced

[TigerClaw]

Paramount has officially announced the 4th Star Trek movie, Chris Hemsworth will return as George Kirk, James T Kirk's father from the 1st movie.
http://deadline.com/2016/07/star-trek-4-movie-set-chris-hemsworth-chris-pine-1201787943/

Paramount Pictures, Skydance and Bad Robot are reaming for a fourth installment of their Star Trek franchise, with Chris Pine returning and the rest of the cast of the rebooted pics also expected to return. The news comes as Star Trek Beyond, the third film, hits theaters Friday.

The plot for the new pic: Pine’s Captain Kirk will cross paths with a man he never had a chance to meet, but whose legacy has haunted him since the day he was born: his father. Chris Hemsworth, who appeared in the 2009 reboot Star Trek, will return to play George Kirk.

J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay will write the screenplay. J.J. Abrams and Lindsey Weber will produce through Bad Robot. David Ellison and Dana Goldberg of Skydance will executive produce.

No release date or director set yet for this. Justin Lin is helming Star Trek Beyond, which was penned by Doug Jung and Simon Pegg.

[Spike Spiegel]

Sounds like another Star Trek IV that is a time travel story.

[thundermaster612]

How much money did the last one make in the box office? I need to figure something out...

[NinjaPug]

Sounds like another Star Trek IV that is a time travel story.

That was my first reaction. God forbid JJ actually do a movie that wasn't connected to another movie that came before it.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Sounds like another Star Trek IV that is a time travel story.

Second movie is a Khan story, fourth movie is a time travel story (where are the whales?)...

You heard it here first, kids: sixth "NuTrek" movie will be about those dastardly Klingons. It'll totally be a new original story where Kirk and Uhura are framed for assassinating a Klingon chancellor at peace talks after the Klingon moon is destroyed. :trolleye:

[Spike Spiegel]

Second movie is a Khan story, fourth movie is a time travel story (where are the whales?)...

You heard it here first, kids: sixth "NuTrek" movie will be about those dastardly Klingons. It'll totally be a new original story where Kirk and Uhura are framed for assassinating a Klingon chancellor at peace talks after the Klingon moon is destroyed. :trolleye:

Wouldn't it be nice if the time travel prevented Vulcan's destruction?

[TheSkeletonMan939]

How much money did the last one make in the box office? I need to figure something out...

You mean Beyond? It hasn't come out yet.

Sounds like another Star Trek IV that is a time travel story.

I was thinking that this was more along the lines of "Star Trek Generations", but either way it's ridiculous how Abrams acts like you can't do anything interesting with Trek that hasn't been done before. The sky's the limit with these characters and this world and he just rips off the good movies from thirty years ago.

[Andrew NDB]

Paramount has officially announced the 4th Star Trek movie, Chris Hemsworth will return as George Kirk, James T Kirk's father from the 1st movie.
http://deadline.com/2016/07/star-trek-4-movie-set-chris-hemsworth-chris-pine-1201787943/

Again, just means they've hired some people to do a script. If "Beyond" is a beyond expected bomb, you can bet this will just quietly go away.

And... what the hell is this? Kirk going back to hang with his dad? Is he really still asking "Who am I" 4 movies into things? Only way this would be remotely interesting to me is if it ends with Kirk saving his dad's life, the Kelvin, and restoring the timeline. And then vanishing. I mean, it wasn't NuKirk's fault the timeline got screwed up and he was made into a sh*tty character... but at least he can be remembered as the guy that fixed it. That's something, at least.

[CyberCubed]

Who will play Chekov?

[Andrew NDB]

Who will play Chekov?

Obviously Yelchin doesn't "own" the character but given the probably low shelf life of the current movieverse, I'd hope they'd just promote the character off the ship or something between films. Like, "Oh cool, this version of Chekov actually made it."

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Who will play Chekov?

I hope they just let his character go... say he went off on his own adventures or something. Then again, they didn't bat an eye about CGIing Phillip Seymour Hoffman into the last Hunger Games movie, or Marlon Brando in Superman Returns, so they'll probably not let him rest in peace either.

[TigerClaw]

Regarding Chekov, they don't plan on recasting the character, so they can just make it like he reassigned to another ship.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/star-trek-cast-unsure-story-yelchin-article-1.2714155

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Regarding Chekov, they don't plan on recasting the character, so they can just make it like he reassigned to another ship.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/star-trek-cast-unsure-story-yelchin-article-1.2714155

I look forward to an original character taking his place. That could be very interesting.

[TigerClaw]

I look forward to an original character taking his place. That could be very interesting.
I would like to see characters from the Star Trek animated series appear in the 4th one.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I would like to see characters from the Star Trek animated series appear in the 4th one.

The animated series sucked. But I suppose the character designs could be reused...

[CyberCubed]

Watch them put a young boy Jean-Luc Picard in one of these films. It would be funny if they used the guy playing young Prof. Xavier in the latest X-men films to also play a young Picard in these reboots.

[Andrew NDB]

At least they're going out of their way to be original with these new films. Khan in the second one. Destroy the Enterprise in the third. Time travel in the fourth.

[CyberCubed]

Wasn't the original contract for the actors 3 movies? So if they make this 4th one I'm betting its another 3 movie contract.

We'll probably get 6 movies out of this rebooted universe. Can't wait to see Kirk and Spock try to save the whales.

[TigerClaw]

The animated series sucked. But I suppose the character designs could be reused...
I would love to see M'Ress in the 4th movie.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/M'Ress

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/6/60/MRess.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20061205201828&path-prefix=en

She's a Caitian who served in the Enterprise as a relief communications officer

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I would love to see M'Ress in the 4th movie.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/M'Ress

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/6/60/MRess.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20061205201828&path-prefix=en

She's a Caitian who served in the Enterprise as a relief communications officer

Yeah, I'll bet you would, Lars. :trolleye:

At least they're going out of their way to be original with these new films. Khan in the second one. Destroy the Enterprise in the third. Time travel in the fourth.

I missed that one. I wonder if anyone will go looking for Spock in "Beyond?"

"Where's Spock, Jim?"
"I dunno, Bones... we'd better SEARCH for him."

[Andrew NDB]

I missed that one. I wonder if anyone will go looking for Spock in "Beyond?"

"Where's Spock, Jim?"
"I dunno, Bones... we'd better SEARCH for him."

Wouldn't be surprised one bit.

[ProactiveMan]

I think studios do this as a marketing ploy to reassure customers and sponsors that seeing this movie or promoting this movie will not be a waste of time/money. 'We have confidence in this film, and so should you'. They can pull the plug later if need be and no one who matters will call them on it.

The movie could be good for all I know, it's just that studios are pretty trigger-happy announcing sequels these days despite being terrible at predicting their success.

[Andrew NDB]

I think studios do this as a marketing ploy to reassure customers and sponsors that seeing this movie or promoting this movie will not be a waste of time/money. 'We have confidence in this film, and so should you'. They can pull the plug later if need be and no one who matters will call them on it.

Happens all of the time.

[Andrew NDB]

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/thor/thor_ragnarok/chris-hemsworth-talks-thor-ragnarok-avengers-infinity-war-and-a148066

So now the Star Trek 4th movie basically is just a "pitch" from Abrams that's floating out there... not a movie that's been green-lit or in any form of pre-production, as the media was led to believe and latch onto.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/thor/thor_ragnarok/chris-hemsworth-talks-thor-ragnarok-avengers-infinity-war-and-a148066

So now the Star Trek 4th movie basically just a "pitch" from Abrams that's floating out there... not a movie that's been green-lit or in any form of pre-production, as the media was led to believe and latch onto.

Not surprised at all. Die without honor.

[Andrew NDB]

I think they need to completely rethink what they want to do for Star Trek 14. I think they know they need to completely rethink what they want to do for Star Trek 14.

It might actually be one of those things where everybody can be happy. What do I mean? Imagine like a big Q movie, with Q trying to teach some final lesson to Picard, throwing him and the Enterprise E back to various times and places throughout Trek lore (hey, maybe dragging Captain Sisko along for the cause), finally to meet the Kelvin in the hours before the arrival of the Narada. Together Picard and George Kirk are able to repel the Narada. Timeline restored, Picard and crew all return to their future, finding it all better... and we get a more proper "goodbye" this time. Or we see the launch of the Enterprise-F with a new crew, maybe this one launched with a Temporal Drive so that Starfleet can be prepared for the next Nero much better.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I think they need to completely rethink what they want to do for Star Trek 14. I think they know they need to completely rethink what they want to do for Star Trek 14.

It might actually be one of those things where everybody can be happy. What do I mean? Imagine like a big Q movie, with Q trying to teach some final lesson to Picard, throwing him and the Enterprise E back to various times and places throughout Trek lore (hey, maybe dragging Captain Sisko along for the cause), finally to meet the Kelvin in the hours before the arrival of the Narada. Together Picard and George Kirk are able to repel the Narada. Timeline restored, Picard and crew all return to their future, finding it all better... and we get a more proper "goodbye" this time. Or we see the launch of the Enterprise-F with a new crew, maybe this one launched with a Temporal Drive so that Starfleet can be prepared for the next Nero much better.

It'd probably be better than what Abrams has in mind, but I'd prefer this to go the way of, say, the 2005 Catwoman movie. Omerta. We pretend it never happened, we never discuss it, and we go back to Real Star Trek. On the small screen.

[Cure]

Aw, man, that sucks. These movies are dope.

[Andrew NDB]

It'd probably be better than what Abrams has in mind, but I'd prefer this to go the way of, say, the 2005 Catwoman movie. Omerta. We pretend it never happened, we never discuss it, and we go back to Real Star Trek.

The only part that would remotely make me sad about that is that it would leave Spock "Prime"'s fate kind of ignorable. As is, he at least had some sort of... uhm... new adventure.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

The only part that would remotely make me sad about that is that it would leave Spock "Prime"'s fate kind of ignorable. As is, he at least had some sort of... uhm... new adventure.

I would have killed to get that "Star Trek Avengers" idea with Picard assembling Worf, Odo, Seven, the EMH Doctor, and a couple of other 24th century crew for one last blow-out adventure... :tsad:

[WebLurker]

If they do go through with the idea of Kirk meeting his dad, I hope that it's not through time travel, but through a parallel universe; That Kirk meets a version of his dad who survived to the "present" in another reality.

[Andrew NDB]

https://trekmovie.com/2018/04/15/simon-pegg-confident-cast-returning-for-another-star-trek-movie/

Ugh... no! No more Abrams Trek, please.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

https://trekmovie.com/2018/04/15/simon-pegg-confident-cast-returning-for-another-star-trek-movie/

Ugh... no! No more Abrams Trek, please.

I don't think it's anything to worry about. Star Trek can't compete with Star Wars on the big screen, and it shouldn't try to, either.

[NinjaPug]

Looks like this is still on. I thought the box office performance of Beyond killed this movie.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/jessica-jones-director-talks-direct-star-trek-4-1106180?__twitter_impression=true

[newfan]

So there will be both Tarantino and Abhrams from the look of that article. I was wondering if they would do one or the other, or make the current crew into an R rated Tarantino movie.

[TigerClaw]

I remember when they were planning the 4th movie. They were gonna have Chris Hemsworth reprise his role as Kirk's Father.

[plastroncafe]

More interested in the sequel with S.J. Clarkson at the helm than I am with the one Tarantino is penning.

We've seen what these movies look like when they're all glib and shiny, and those weren't great.

[Andrew NDB]

I remember when they were planning the 4th movie. They were gonna have Chris Hemsworth reprise his role as Kirk's Father.

That never made it farther than a conversation. It was FAKE news to get people to go and see "Beyond" (it didn't work).

[Cure]

I hope this happens. I would watch it so hard.

[CyberCubed]

They have to make at least 6 movies with the new Trek cast.

[Andrew NDB]

They have to make at least 6 movies with the new Trek cast.

That again. No, they don't. TNG cast didn't get 6 movies and the TNG cast deserved 6 movies way more than Abrams' buddies.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

That again. No, they don't. TNG cast didn't get 6 movies and the TNG cast deserved 6 movies way more than Abrams' buddies.

Word. .

[Andrew NDB]

I missed that article... so the studio mandated this movie have a female director, just because female director? Mr. Fast and Furious director didn't make their last Abramsverse movie money, so let's try riding the wave of the latest movement and see if that does any better?

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Transparently dumb. And desperate.

[newfan]

Unpopular opinion but I would happily go and see a 4th, I like these guys. I didn't like what they did with the timeline, taking out most of vulcans (because I like the vulcans) but otherwise I've enjoyed them.

As for the female director, while I get that they would like to give a female a chance, it shouldn't be a must (if it is?) excluding anyone who could do a good job with this.

[Andrew NDB]

As for the female director, while I get that they would like to give a female a chance, it shouldn't be a must (if it is?)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jessica-jones-director-talks-direct-star-trek-4-1106180

"a mandate that comes from the top"

[newfan]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jessica-jones-director-talks-direct-star-trek-4-1106180

"a mandate that comes from the top"

Ugh, I would like to think they could just pick whoever comes across as capable, giving everyone a fair chance and still putting the movie first. Don't get me wrong, I do realise there has been an inequality here in the first place but is there not a better way to address this than making an outright statement of 'has to be a woman' . Also, thinking of whoever gets the role, she'll know that they had to have a female.

[Andrew NDB]

Ugh, I would like to think they could just pick whoever comes across as capable, giving everyone a fair chance and still putting the movie first. Don't get me wrong, I do realise there has been an inequality here in the first place but is there not a better way to address this than making an outright statement of 'has to be a woman' . Also, thinking of whoever gets the role, she'll know that they had to have a female.

The idea now is to try and make Star Trek 4 an "important movie." Like "A Wrinkle in Time" tried to. Because now they get to ride a bunch of press about how progressive they are and be critic proof.

[newfan]

SJ Clarkson chosen for Director. Also, they are talking plans for Chris Hemsworth again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-trek-4-paramount-pictures-sj-clarkson-female-director-a8326371.html

[Andrew NDB]

SJ Clarkson chosen for Director. Also, they are talking plans for Chris Hemsworth again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-trek-4-paramount-pictures-sj-clarkson-female-director-a8326371.html

They're just citing the old plan for Hemsworth mentioned before Beyond came out. There hasn't been any new article I've read that cites anything of the plot since they've revived Star Trek 4 with this new director. Could be anything.

[newfan]

They're just citing the old plan for Hemsworth mentioned before Beyond came out. There hasn't been any new article I've read that cites anything of the plot since they've revived Star Trek 4 with this new director. Could be anything.

Need to read more carefully, still early yet, I did read that the cast are no-longer in contract with paramount also but contracts can be renewed if people want it.

[Andrew NDB]

Need to read more carefully, still early yet, I did read that the cast are no-longer in contract with paramount also but contracts can be renewed if people want it.

The contracts thing is meaningless. Even if they were still under contract, that only means that Paramount could force them to participate, not that they would have to. And the only member of the cast who is even going to be kind of busy is Saldana, filming 20 Avatar movies back to back now with a Guardians 3 (maybe) in the mix as well. Paramount played and won the long game... all of their leading acting careers failed and guys like Pine and Quinto should be way cheaper now than they would have around Into Darkness.

They'll all come back.

[newfan]

The contracts thing is meaningless. Even if they were still under contract, that only means that Paramount could force them to participate, not that they would have to. And the only member of the cast who is even going to be kind of busy is Saldana, filming 20 Avatar movies back to back now with a Guardians 3 (maybe) in the mix as well. Paramount played and won the long game... all of their leading acting careers failed and guys like Pine and Quinto should be way cheaper now than they would have around Into Darkness.

They'll all come back.

Pine is cheaper now? Oh. I mean I know he didn't become a massive Star but he's popped up in a few movies.

By the way that last post I meant as I need to read more carefully, just in case it looked liked I meant you :)

[Andrew NDB]

Pine is cheaper now? Oh. I mean I know he didn't become a massive Star but he's popped up in a few movies.

His leading man days have been done for a minute. He last turn in "Jack Ryan" was a big failure... all he's really got left at this point is Star Trek, and Wonder Woman if they decide to find a way to resurrect him.

[CyberCubed]

Chris Pine has been in ton of hit movies up to Wonder Woman:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/christopher_pine/

I've seen most of them too.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I don't agree that Pine is in a decline; the nuTrek movies might be crap (and they are), but they're pretty star-studded.

But this whole idea of a fourth movie is laughable. They tried to make Trek a cool blockbuster franchise, and it didn't happen. Move on.

[plastroncafe]

I don't agree that Pine is in a decline; the nuTrek movies might be crap (and they are), but they're pretty star-studded.

But this whole idea of a fourth movie is laughable. They tried to make Trek a cool blockbuster franchise, and it didn't happen. Move on.

This just makes me sad, because I love the cast and really loved that third movie. More of that is something I'd be very interested in.

It's just a shame that the only people responsible for making the first two who did their jobs were the casting department.
Well...aside from that whole thing with Cumberbatch.

[Andrew NDB]

Chris Pine and Hemsworth (he was even still involved in this? huh) both walked away because of bad salary negotiations.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/pine-hemsworth-exit-star-trek-4/

[TigerClaw]

Chris Pine and Hemsworth (he was even still involved in this? huh) both walked away because of bad salary negotiations.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/pine-hemsworth-exit-star-trek-4/
That's not good. Either they will get recast or... They go along with Tarentino's Star Trek movie?

[Andrew NDB]

That's not good. Either they will get recast or... They go along with Tarentino's Star Trek movie?

They already are going with Tarantino's movie... but the ball is in Quentin's court as to when that gets off the ground. If Abramsverse #4 falls apart, that means it won't be immediately in the way when Abrams is completely done with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Assuming Quentin wants to jump right into it and not take a little breather.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Chris Pine and Hemsworth (he was even still involved in this? huh) both walked away because of bad salary negotiations.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/pine-hemsworth-exit-star-trek-4/

https://i.imgur.com/olB0hX5.gif?noredirect

[Andrew NDB]

https://i.imgur.com/olB0hX5.gif?noredirect

That sums up my feelings entirely.

[Andrew NDB]

Sidenote: I wonder if this suggests that the Tarantino movie has nothing to do with the Abramsverse of its cast? I mean, if Paramount knows they're doing the Tarantino movie and that is going to be the big draw, the big event movie that will get people from all sides of the aisle into seats by the sheer novelty of it and an Abramsverse #4 is far from a sure bet at the box office after Beyond... why would Paramount need to placate Pine's salary? As far as they're concerned if they can't do Abramsverse #4 on the cheap, they don't need it anyway.

[Sumac]

Chris Pine and Hemsworth (he was even still involved in this? huh) both walked away because of bad salary negotiations.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/pine-hemsworth-exit-star-trek-4/
Wait, isn't Pine is the new!Kirk?
So, if he is than this part of the franchise is left without main hero?

[newfan]

What, no Chris Pine :(

I thought he'd captured Kirk in the last movie, not interested in a replacement, if they go down that road.

There are like 3 movies just in talks which I have interest in at the moment, with ST likely holding the least interest out the three, but still, one of them would be good.

[Andrew NDB]

Wait, isn't Pine is the new!Kirk?
So, if he is than this part of the franchise is left without main hero?

Which means 100% Paramount won't bother with this. This article says it all. If they let Pine leave the table with no deal, there's no way in the world they're doing part 4 without Kirk. They certainly wouldn't re-recast something that they know is already being ridiculed. It means they didn't care enough about it to do so and now it's dead.

This may even (and now I am totally speculating) have something to do with CBS jockeying Star Trek movie vs. TV rights, which is apparently a thing. Which is apparently the reason Discovery legally couldn't resemble what it needed to... yet suddenly a 24th (25th?) century Picard show is announced that kinda has to.

Something's going on here. Maybe part 4 really would have been the "let's wrap this nonsense up and get back to real Trek via time travel" and Pine didn't want to get lowballed to get erased.

[ranger_scout]

Karl Urban still believes that deals for Pine and Hemsworth to appear in the film still might work out.

At the moment. I believe the status of the project is really hinging on the availability and the contract negotiations of the two Chrises... Hopefully, we get back for another movie, or two of them. We are just sort of waiting on negotiations. I'm confident we will.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2456813/karl-urban-thinks-the-star-trek-4-salary-negotiations-will-work-out

[ranger_scout]

Karl Urban now doesn't have any updates on the status of the film.

I know nothing about Star Trek, I wish I did... No news, apparently there is no news.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2459288/karl-urban-says-star-trek-4-news-is-still-at-a-halt

[ZariusTwo]

It's officially dead

Clarkson was recruited by HBO for GOT after she recently became available. Earlier this year, Clarkson was the first female director to be tapped to direct a Star Trek movie when she was hired to helm the fourth feature in the current series. That project has since been shelved.



https://deadline.com/2019/01/game-of-thrones-prequel-hbo-pilot-s-j-clarkson-to-direct-naomi-ackie-7-more-cast-1202531071/

[Andrew NDB]

That's great news.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

That's great news.

Agreed. Besides, once Discovery happened and CBS decided to run with their own cinematic universe, that put most of the nails in the coffin.

Fvcking JJ Abrams.

[Andrew NDB]

It doesn't quite put the final nail in the coffin of the Abramsverse movies, though. Tarantino will still, in theory, jump right into that right after Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's junket is over. Which will feature the Abramsverse cast.

The Abramsverse doesn't deserve Tarantino. I hope that's not final, but it probably is since he's said it's a very specific story. If he's been telling the cast they'll be involved, then that really cinches it. And guess what will happen if it's a big success? Tarantino will walk away from it and other hacks will just keep cranking out more Abramsverse movies.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

It doesn't quite put the final nail in the coffin of the Abramsverse movies, though. Tarantino will still, in theory, jump right into that right after Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's junket is over. Which will feature the Abramsverse cast.

The Abramsverse doesn't deserve Tarantino. I hope that's not final, but it probably is since he's said it's a very specific story. If he's been telling the cast they'll be involved, then that really cinches it. And guess what will happen if it's a big success? Tarantino will walk away from it and other hacks will just keep cranking out more Abramsverse movies.

But will Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth accept smaller paychecks to work with Tarantino?

[Andrew NDB]

But will Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth accept smaller paychecks to work with Tarantino?

I can't tell if you're joking there...

Hemsworth doesn't have any part in the Tarantino movie and I bet the movie gets a bigger budget to accommodate whatever Pine was asking. Star Trek 4 was just going to be the sequel to Star Trek Beyond that nobody cared about. Star Trek: The Tarantino Movie... now that's an event.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I can't tell if you're joking there...

Hemsworth doesn't have any part in the Tarantino movie and I bet the movie gets a bigger budget to accommodate whatever Pine was asking. Star Trek 4 was just going to be the sequel to Star Trek Beyond that nobody cared about. Star Trek: The Tarantino Movie... now that's an event.

Sigh. You're probably right. That'd breathe new life into a bad franchise. Even as I was typing it, I realized "Man, I'D take a paycut to work with Tarantino." And yeah, that'd draw extra funds.

Beats me why the man wouldn't rather work with Mulgrew, Brooks, and Stewart, but whatever.

[Andrew NDB]

Sigh. You're probably right. That'd breathe new life into a bad franchise. Even as I was typing it, I realized "Man, I'D take a paycut to work with Tarantino." And yeah, that'd draw extra funds.

I guess there is a second option: it could be the Abrams cast playing the same characters (of course)... but in the REAL timeline, on the REAL Enterprise.

It's possible, I guess.

Beats me why the man wouldn't rather work with Mulgrew, Brooks, and Stewart, but whatever.

Me, too. I was so sure it would be a big TNG fest. Technically, there's nothing saying it couldn't involve the Abrams cast... AND other casts, too. Like some kind of major league time travel odyssey.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I guess there is a second option: it could be the Abrams cast playing the same characters (of course)... but in the REAL timeline, on the REAL Enterprise.

It's possible, I guess.

Me, too. I was so sure it would be a big TNG fest. Technically, there's nothing saying it couldn't involve the Abrams cast... AND other casts, too. Like some kind of major league time travel odyssey.

On the one hand, playing with the nuTrek cast seems appealing because canon's already been bent over a desk and sullied, so no worries. But on the other hand, playing with the 24th-century Trek casts seems more appealing because that's real Star Trek to most everybody.

Mixing nuKirk with real Picard or real Sisko or real Janeway or real Archer seems like it would be hated by too many people. But what do I know? :tlol:

[ZariusTwo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBfNYVwj8lw&t=3s

[ranger_scout]

Chris Hemsworth said the film's underwhelming script was the reason why he chose to walk away from it.

I didn’t feel like we landed on a reason to revisit that yet. I didn’t want to be underwhelmed by what I was going to bring to the table.

How Chris Hemsworth Found His Way as a Movie Star With Thor and ‘The Avengers’ (https://variety.com/2019/film/features/chris-hemsworth-avengers-thor-men-in-black-international-1203225799/)

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Chris Hemsworth said the film's underwhelming script was the reason why he chose to walk away from it.



How Chris Hemsworth Found His Way as a Movie Star With Thor and ‘The Avengers’ (https://variety.com/2019/film/features/chris-hemsworth-avengers-thor-men-in-black-international-1203225799/)

If 4 was underwhelming, that says a lot. :tlol: Because I found 2 underwhelming enough to never, ever touch 3.

[Andrew NDB]

If 4 was underwhelming, that says a lot. :tlol: Because I found 2 underwhelming enough to never, ever touch 3.

It's not great but 3 is the only one that bothers to try and be a Star Trek movie. But even then there is still edgy Abrams crap.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

It's not great but 3 is the only one that bothers to try and be a Star Trek movie. But even then there is still edgy Abrams crap.

After they crapped the bed by shoehorning in 1-dimensional versions of Khan, Section 31, Carol Marcus, and the magic Augment blood, they lost any chance of ever getting me to watch anything made by JJ Abrams ever again.

It's popular to dislike, say, M. Night or somebody, but I've got a blood vendetta against Abrams. That man has a lot to answer for. :trazz:

[Jester]

I actually kinda like Star Trek Beyond but that's only because it tried to tell a new story that wasn't a rehash or stuff it already seen before.

[Andrew NDB]

After they crapped the bed by shoehorning in 1-dimensional versions of Khan, Section 31, Carol Marcus, and the magic Augment blood, they lost any chance of ever getting me to watch anything made by JJ Abrams ever again.

It's popular to dislike, say, M. Night or somebody, but I've got a blood vendetta against Abrams. That man has a lot to answer for. :trazz:

That's fair. I can respect that.

I actually kinda like Star Trek Beyond but that's only because it tried to tell a new story that wasn't a rehash or stuff it already seen before.

And there was the whole 50th anniversary thing it was riding, too. The moment with Kirk holding the photo from Star Trek VI of the whole cast was touching... albeit, an actual visual reminder of how far Star Trek has strayed from Trek. It was fun seeing the Enterprise uniforms and an NX-01-like ship.

And what a bad ending for Spock Prime. He gets marooned in an alternate, shi**y timeline trying to save the damn Romulans just in time to watch his own homeworld get blown up by a Romulan... then he dies of old age surrounded by strangers. I'd say that's a significantly worse death than Kirk's.

[ranger_scout]

Wow, I thought for sure that this was dead. I never thought Pine would return after what happened.

Paramount is beaming up a new captain for its Star Trek franchise. Noah Hawley, who is best known for TV's Fargo and Legion, will direct the next Trek film for Paramount, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed.

It is expected that Chris Pine will reprise his role as Captain James T. Kirk alongside his castmates such as Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldana who have been with the series since J.J. Abrams revamped the franchise in 2009. This fourth Star Trek stands separate from one that Quentin Tarantino has been attached to for two years.

Paramount had been developing a fourth installment after 2016’s Star Trek Beyond and had hoped to be in production earlier this year. But after developing a time travel-themed script that would reunite Pine's Kirk with his father (Chris Hemsworth), negotiations with Pine and Hemsworth fell apart in summer 2018. Paramount was trying to keep costs contained but the initial deals for the actors playing the Enterprise crew had run out and new, more expensive, deals were on the table. Talks never resumed and the project was shelved.

S.J. Clarkson was attached to helm Trek 4 at the time and would have become the first woman in the franchise's history to direct a Trek film.

Hawley is a respected mind in the genre space and won an outstanding miniseries Emmy for Fargo's first season in 2014. A fourth season is on the way with Chris Rock in the lead. Hawley also directed the feature Lucy in the Sky, which starred Natalie Portman, and was developing a script based on the Marvel villain Doctor Doom for Fox before the studio was purchased by Disney.

Hawley will produce Trek 4 via his 26 Keys banner along with Bad Robot, the production banner run by Abrams, who helmed the first two installments of this current Trek incarnation.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-fargo-creator-noah-hawley-direct-next-film-1256352

[Andrew NDB]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/c5a8ea7f3cb6c62b8c2f587a74d46570/tenor.gif?itemid=8426203

F***, and that's going to delay the Tarantino movie (if there's to be one).

[IMJ]

Given how much fun ST Beyond was (especially measured against the first two), I can't believe they don't bring the Fast and the Furious guy back. Beyond was a standout against the other two Abrams-verse flicks.

Anyway, we've still got Picard coming out. I am so jazzed.......

[Andrew NDB]

Given how much fun ST Beyond was (especially measured against the first two), I can't believe they don't bring the Fast and the Furious guy back.

He was an "it" guy at the moment of Beyond and probably wasn't cheap. That, and Beyond made 100 million less than the last couple.

Meanwhile, he's quietly gone back to making Fast and Furious movies. Which there's nothing wrong with. 4, 5, and 6 were great.

Anyway, we've still got Picard coming out. I am so jazzed.......

I am... even though I'm terrified the Kurtzman factor is going to make it horrible.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

No more Star Trek movies. Star Trek does not make good 21st century cinema without sacrificing everything that MAKES it Star Trek.

[Andrew NDB]

No more Star Trek movies.

No, not until they rebuild some good faith. Let's start with Picard. Prove to us you know what you're doing, then maybe we can talk about Star Trek movies again.

Because man, this seems like 2 steps forward and 1 step back.

[newfan]

This seems to have been up in the air for a while now, the other one has too.

I also preferred Beyond out of the 3, with declining numbers going to watch that though can we expect 4 to suddenly be very successful? With the Tarantino idea being something a little different that may have got more interest?
I will see this if it happens though, or the Tarantino one if that happens.

[Galactus]

No more Star Trek movies. Star Trek does not make good 21st century cinema without sacrificing everything that MAKES it Star Trek.

That's always been the way with Star Trek.

All the 'good' Star Trek movies don't really resemble the shows their based on all that much and some of the ones that attempted it were considered poor because of it.

Ron Moore acknowledged this when he said Star Trek's true home was television as with movies you have to up the stakes, those stakes need to be something casual audiences will care about (like Earth) and you need a proper villain (like the Borg suddenly having a Queen). It can't just be a movie were the Enterprise goes into an unexplored territory and gets into an ethical conflict with the locals; ie Insurrection which I don't hate or anything but doesn't really work as a movie.

Personally if they are going to stick with the Abramsverse in the movies have original series species that have permeated wider pop culture but the subsequent series largely ignored like say the Gorn or the Tholians. Have the two species fight it out for the Guardian of Forever with the new Enterprise caught in the middle.

[Andrew NDB]

Said to be smaller in scale, less costly to make:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/why-star-trek-4-is-a-high-stakes-game-paramount-1256970?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Andrew NDB]

Interesting... Simon Pegg doesn't believe this movie is going to involve his cast.

https://comicbook.com/startrek/2019/12/28/star-trek-4-noah-hawley-simon-pegg-new-cast/?fbclid=IwAR33bF-xOJW5_JMxOhXr2gquMKOqF0ZAsGFTKhoKxQrtPP-DerD5iEtJJ9w

[Andrew NDB]

Straight up said to be standalone, and probably Prime universe:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/hawleys-star-trek-film-is-standalone/

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Straight up said to be standalone, and probably Prime universe:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/hawleys-star-trek-film-is-standalone/

I still don't think Star Trek should be left unattended in Tarantino's care... skeptical...

[Andrew NDB]

I still don't think Star Trek should be left unattended in Tarantino's care... skeptical...

This isn't the Tarantino one.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

This isn't the Tarantino one.

Wait, what? I'm confused now.

[Andrew NDB]

Wait, what? I'm confused now.

Basically Tarantino may or may not still do one, but meanwhile a new 4th movie is being made with a reduced budget from what they were working with and won't have anything to do with the Abrams movies.

I'm thinking it will be some notable "event" from some point in Trek history. Probably still dicking around in Kirk'n Spock era.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Basically Tarantino may or may not still do one, but meanwhile a new 4th movie is being made with a reduced budget from what they were working with and won't have anything to do with the Abrams movies.

I'm thinking it will be some notable "event" from some point in Trek history. Probably still dicking around in Kirk'n Spock era.

Prime now, with a new cast? Or the nuTrek cast, but in Prime?

Seems like they should wait, let Picard happen, and then do a 25th century Avengers type team-up... Seven, the Doctor, Worf, Geordi, Kira, Bashir, Dax.

[Andrew NDB]

Prime now, with a new cast? Or the nuTrek cast, but in Prime?

From the sound of the director, definitely Prime. Cast, all we know is that the existing cast are saying they don't think they're in it. Coupled with the article about them looking to shoot it at a smaller budget supports that (especially with that being what froze it when it was still the one with Hemsworth, with Pine wanting more money).

Seems like they should wait, let Picard happen, and then do a 25th century Avengers type team-up... Seven, the Doctor, Worf, Geordi, Kira, Bashir, Dax.

Why wait? This movie is two years off, at least.

[newfan]

All over the place, so far it's seemed something like this:
They're making a 4th movie, a sequel to the others AND Tarantino was hoping to make a movie also (R rated?).
Then 4th movie more likely than the Tarantinos, looking for female director
Then no 4th movie and Tarantino movie gets some more talk with the idea to use same cast.
Then, wait.. no, 4th movie back on, the other might be waiting some time now.
Now.... calling it the 4th movie (cause it is a 4th new movie) but not really n0 4 as it might be totally different from the others.

[Andrew NDB]

All over the place, so far it's seemed something like this:
They're making a 4th movie, a sequel to the others AND Tarantino was hoping to make a movie also (R rated?).
Then 4th movie more likely than the Tarantinos, looking for female director
Then no 4th movie and Tarantino movie gets some more talk with the idea to use same cast.
Then, wait.. no, 4th movie back on, the other might be waiting some time now.
Now.... calling it the 4th movie (cause it is a 4th new movie) but not really n0 4 as it might be totally different from the others.

Kind of about right. Like...

1. Right when Star Trek Beyond came out (like even before the box office came in), they announce they're looking at making a 4th Abramsverse movie immediately. We're told this will bring back Hemsworth in some way, presumably time travel since he's Kirk's dad.

2. That movie stalls out, basically (probably because Beyond did way below expectations). But still breathes as an "active pre-production."

3. Tarantino enters out of nowhere. He wants to do a separate Star Trek movie, maybe as director but maybe as a producer, like with him bringing in his own writers. They roll out the red carpet for him. Abrams literally tells him he can do whatever he wants. More articles come out... he thinks the Abramsverse is stupid and wants to do something in the real universe. JJ agrees with him.

4. The other Star Trek movie, Abramsverse-based is back on! Female director! Full steam ahead.

5. The fourth Abramsverse Star Trek movie is shot dead when Chris Pine walks away from it because of money. It falls apart.

6. Tarantino waffles on his Star Trek movie. He hasn't had a lot of time to have the talks he needs to in order to figure things out. if they go well, it's game on. If not, he'll walk away. Hasn't happened yet.

7. Suddenly word that Paramount is looking at reducing the budget of a prospective new Star Trek movie (not to be confused with the Tarantino movie).

8. Noah Hawley is tapped to direct the said lower budgeted Star Trek movie ... I guess it'd be better to call it Star Trek XIV than "the fourth movie." Because it won't be in the Abramsverse/Kelvin universe and it'll be its own thing. We don't know anything about it other than the JJ cast saying they're pretty sure they won't be in it. He pretty much flat out says it'll be in the main canon, i.e. the "Prime Universe."

[newfan]

Kind of about right. Like...

1. Right when Star Trek Beyond came out (like even before the box office came in), they announce they're looking at making a 4th Abramsverse movie immediately. We're told this will bring back Hemsworth in some way, presumably time travel since he's Kirk's dad.

2. That movie stalls out, basically (probably because Beyond did way below expectations). But still breathes as an "active pre-production."

3. Tarantino enters out of nowhere. He wants to do a separate Star Trek movie, maybe as director but maybe as a producer, like with him bringing in his own writers. They roll out the red carpet for him. Abrams literally tells him he can do whatever he wants. More articles come out... he thinks the Abramsverse is stupid and wants to do something in the real universe. JJ agrees with him.

4. The other Star Trek movie, Abramsverse-based is back on! Female director! Full steam ahead.

5. The fourth Abramsverse Star Trek movie is shot dead when Chris Pine walks away from it because of money. It falls apart.

6. Tarantino waffles on his Star Trek movie. He hasn't had a lot of time to have the talks he needs to in order to figure things out. if they go well, it's game on. If not, he'll walk away. Hasn't happened yet.

7. Suddenly word that Paramount is looking at reducing the budget of a prospective new Star Trek movie (not to be confused with the Tarantino movie).

8. Noah Hawley is tapped to direct the said lower budgeted Star Trek movie ... I guess it'd be better to call it Star Trek XIV than "the fourth movie." Because it won't be in the Abramsverse/Kelvin universe and it'll be its own thing. We don't know anything about it other than the JJ cast saying they're pretty sure they won't be in it. He pretty much flat out says it'll be in the main canon, i.e. the "Prime Universe."

Well that's more detailed than my thrown together thoughts :lol: I hadn't realised a 4th was planned so far back, guess they had more hope for Beyond doing well. As others have said, I feel Beyond was the best of those but success would be down to what people thought of the previous movies (or if fatigue started to set in maybe?)

[Andrew NDB]

Word is the Noah Hawley movie is already dead:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/02/03/rumor-noah-hawleys-star-trek-movie-rejected-as-details-leak-out/

Reportedly deemed "too Trekky" by Paramount.

[Andrew NDB]

Simon Pegg:

https://www.gamesradar.com/simon-pegg-interview-star-trek-beyond/?fbclid=IwAR3bJ0p9GHbiveM1KDx0F_s6J6dPpiWMqnY4z8l5 dsZKNL_3cyKqK_GI2MI

[Andrew NDB]

https://i.ibb.co/Qd0zYxC/89352693-3842303912447240-6543009782100393984-o.jpg

Interesting way to market the JJ movies. It's almost like they're admitting they're terrible, but "Hey look, it's OK... we've got these 3 movies in the quarantine! They don't affect the real stuff!"

[IMJ]

https://i.ibb.co/Qd0zYxC/89352693-3842303912447240-6543009782100393984-o.jpg

Interesting way to market the JJ movies. It's almost like they're admitting they're terrible, but "Hey look, it's OK... we've got these 3 movies in the quarantine! They don't affect the real stuff!"

And they so liberally call it a trilogy just because it's three movies. Not because there is any legit overarching connecting tissue or thematic narrative.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

https://i.ibb.co/Qd0zYxC/89352693-3842303912447240-6543009782100393984-o.jpg

Interesting way to market the JJ movies. It's almost like they're admitting they're terrible, but "Hey look, it's OK... we've got these 3 movies in the quarantine! They don't affect the real stuff!"

The Kelvin Timeline.

As in: "Yes, we finally admit you can ignore these three movies."

Way ahead of you, guys, but thanks all the same!

[Andrew NDB]

Maybe it's happening and maybe it's not, but once again it doesn't look to feature the Abrams gang:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/frozen-3-matrix-4-star-trek-4-talk/

[ZariusTwo]

It's off again, Paramount are pausing development to figure out just where they want to take the franchise on the big screen next

https://deadline.com/2020/08/star-trek-movie-reboot-noah-hawley-emma-watts-top-priority-paramount-pictures-1203007658/

[NinjaPug]

Ugh. They?re just gonna end up doing another Kelvin movie now. I was excited to see what Hawley would?ve brought to the table.

Viacom has no clue how to handle any aspect of this franchise. Stop letting people like JJ, Kurtzman or the god awful Akiva Goldman near the franchise.

[sdp]

I remember when Star Trek 2009 came out it it got rave reviews and how it had made star trek for a new generation tons of positive praise, and how it felt more "like star wars than the prequel trilogy". I had never really checked Star Trek out before so I went to see it and was not impressed, I watched it two more times to force myself into liking it and it just didn't and gave up.

Why is the reboot timeline hated now? I remember the second being called just a poor remake of a beloved Trek film from the past, so the third is also bad? How did they mess something up that was loved so much int he first movie? Granted I never liked it but people seemed to. Is it like The Force Awakens where people didn't realize it sucked until the sequels?


And they so liberally call it a trilogy just because it's three movies. Not because there is any legit overarching connecting tissue or thematic narrative.

Well most trilogies from decades ago didn't have an overarching story either, I remember growing up everything was called "trilogy" if it was 3 movies even if they're all very different, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, austin powers, godfather.

[Leo656]

I think the raves for the first Abrams Trek just came about because it had been SO long since Trek was even relevant, and the previous films weren't very good, or rather even the good TNG movies weren't very exciting. And the ones that were "exciting" didn't feel much like Trek.

The Abrams flick didn't feel like Trek, either - when people say "It feels just like Star Wars!" about a Star Trek project, that's a sure sign that it's coming in from the exact wrong direction; likewise, you can see how much the previous film, "Nemesis", was leaning on what was happening with "The Phantom Menace" around the same time, and that was terrible. BUT, the Abrams movie was an exciting action movie dressed up in a Trek costume, so it worked for what it was trying to do: Revive a "dead" brand and entice people like my wife who'd never, ever, ever cared about anything Star Trek to sit still for two hours.

I still kinda like it - I don't even think "Into Darkness" is AS bad as people say, but it's definitely not great, and so much of it leans on the "twist" which fooled absolutely 0% of the audience that it really makes the entire exercise utterly pointless. But objectively the first is merely competent with a slick veneer, as far as an action movie, and even as a neophyte, I can say that No, those movies are NOT "Star Trek". They're better Star Wars movies than Disney's tripe, but again, Trek ain't Wars, and it was obvious which franchise Abrams was auditioning for when he made his two "Trek" films.

I can totally understand why "real" Trek fans hate them, and their points are valid. There's always been a case that Trek simply doesn't work as a movie, period; I don't entirely agree, but I can see why some people swear by that. Movies, by definition, "have to" be about razzle-dazzle and spectacle, whereas Trek is by definition thoughtful, philosophical and ponderous. The Trek movies that lean closest to the TV shows, are generally not well-regarded AS movies, because they are "boring". And the Trek films that get the best reviews and the most audience acclaim, lean far too heavily into either broad comedy OR over-the-top action. Last year I watched the entire film series for the first time, and by the third time they blew up the goddamn Enterprise it was pretty goddamn obvious that the pen-holders had NO idea how to make Star Trek bombastic enough for a $100 million spectacle. So... maybe it CAN'T work as a movie without twisting it into something it's not. I don't know. Like I said, I'm a neophyte. I appreciate the franchise and it's always been a very small part of my life, mostly in the background, but it's so overwhelming due to the sheer mass of content that it's hard for me to really get into.

That said, as "bad" or as "Not-Trek" as the first Abrams movie was, I get why it had people enthusiastic at the time. And I'll have a soft spot for it simply because without it, I could never have gotten my wife to sit still for "real" Trek. For what it's worth, she still likes the Abrams movie more than most of the others - "Because it's exciting and movies aren't supposed to be boring" - but before she saw that one, whenever I even suggested anything Trek she'd just groan. And she kinda likes it, now. I have a feeling that was the case with a LOT of people. So I feel like even though the Abrams films aren't what the brand should be, they still served a valuable purpose as a "gateway drug" insofar as getting some people to give "Real Trek" a try.

It's just a shame that it seems to be so goddamn difficult to make a movie out of "Real Trek". :ohwell:


Well most trilogies from decades ago didn't have an overarching story either, I remember growing up everything was called "trilogy" if it was 3 movies even if they're all very different, Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, austin powers, godfather.

I get what you're trying to say but BttF doesn't fit with those at all. All three movies run parallel and borrow entire scenes from each other outright. It's arguably the best example of a "REAL trilogy" that's ever been done, RATHER than "Just three movies in a row".

Just saying. "One of these things is not like the other."

[Andrew NDB]

The JJ trilogy is reviled because, #1, it's not Star Trek, #2, it's a brain dead action extravaganza (words that should never be associated with Star Trek) that burned itself out in 2 movies. Nobody even showed up to see the third, which even tried to be like a Star Trek movie. A little.

But Leo is right. The movies before it (Insurrection and Nemesis) were pretty bad. TPTB haven't really had a good handle on how to make a good Star Trek movie since maybe VI. Though First Contact has its moments.

But no. Rebooting the JJ way and burning things out so quickly was never the answer.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

If Star Trek 2009 had been followed by a decent movie, it could have been a decent series. 2009 wasn't Star Trek either, it was reinventing Star Trek for a younger generation and a movie audience.

But Into Darkness wasn't even a good movie, much less good Star Trek.

Discovery and Picard are at least true Star Trek some of the time.

[TigerClaw]

If Star Trek 2009 had been followed by a decent movie, it could have been a decent series. 2009 wasn't Star Trek either, it was reinventing Star Trek for a younger generation and a movie audience.

But Into Darkness wasn't even a good movie, much less good Star Trek.

Discovery and Picard are at least true Star Trek some of the time.
Star Trek Beyond was pretty good.

[Sumac]

Star Trek Beyond was pretty good.
Ditto.
I find it similar to some of the episodes of SG1, which in my book, makes it a decent sci-fi movie.

[Leo656]

Is that the third one?

I think I saw part of it. Was that the one where the crew playing some song by the Beastie Boys is a major plot point? I passed through a room while someone was watching it, and that scene was on, and frankly it was the dumbest thing I think I ever saw so I just kinda kept walking.

But yeah I didn't see the third one. Is that it? I might not bother. :lol: Perhaps some context would help, but.... maybe not.

I mean I like the Beastie Boys but holy sh*t those Trek movies had way more Beastie Boys than I prefer to have in my Star Trek. It'd be like Batman rocking out to the Misfits. If he does that in his personal life, that's amazing, but I don't need to actually see it unfold before my eyes, and in fact I prefer that it not. :lol:

Abrams and Whedon both jerk off a lot on film. Rob Zombie, too.

[newfan]

Out of all three new movie I preferred beyond.

My most watched are the original crew movies (barring the first), especially 2,4, and 6. Of the next gen First contact is my most watched, I don't care for what they did with Picard in part of that but as a whole it's something I liked.

So far as all this up coming on and off mess, I've stopped taking this seriously, unless something actually stars being made. It's like they know they definitely want to do a Star Trek movie... but what and with who and making definite decisions is another thing.

[Leo656]

I liked the original Trek movie a lot. It was slow and talky and artsy-fartsy but I found it intriguing. Obviously the rest of the series plays better AS "movies" but I greatly admired their ambition with the first one.

Visually, nothing in the entire film series impressed me as much as the wormhole scene or whatever in the first movie, especially considering the limitations given when it was made. That was neat. Different. After that all they ever really did with the SFX budget for the movies was blow sh*t up. Anybody can do that!

I'm pretty forgiving of the entire series, though. People swear to me that V is the absolute worst, and it's definitely a low-budget affair but as far as having heart and ambition it's way, WAY better than "Nemesis". Nemesis might be one of the worst movies I've seen. Which isn't to say it's terrible, it's just that I don't generally watch a ton of bad movies so my basis for comparison is relatively limited. Like it wouldn't be Top 5 Worst, maybe Top 15 or something. But I'd rather watch Sybok try to lead them to the God Planet like 20 more times before I'd deign to watch Nemesis again even once.

F*cking Bane doesn't even look like Picard. :lol: Dumb movie.

[newfan]

I liked the original Trek movie a lot. It was slow and talky and artsy-fartsy but I found it intriguing. Obviously the rest of the series plays better AS "movies" but I greatly admired their ambition with the first one.

Visually, nothing in the entire film series impressed me as much as the wormhole scene or whatever in the first movie, especially considering the limitations given when it was made. That was neat. Different. After that all they ever really did with the SFX budget for the movies was blow sh*t up. Anybody can do that!

I'm pretty forgiving of the entire series, though. People swear to me that V is the absolute worst, and it's definitely a low-budget affair but as far as having heart and ambition it's way, WAY better than "Nemesis". Nemesis might be one of the worst movies I've seen. Which isn't to say it's terrible, it's just that I don't generally watch a ton of bad movies so my basis for comparison is relatively limited. Like it wouldn't be Top 5 Worst, maybe Top 15 or something. But I'd rather watch Sybok try to lead them to the God Planet like 20 more times before I'd deign to watch Nemesis again even once.

F*cking Bane doesn't even look like Picard. :lol: Dumb movie.

I was thinking after my last post that for some reason my memory on Nemisis is very hazy, I think I watched it twice but I can't remember it well at all. By the time this movie had come out my big phase of Star Trek where I watched a lot of the time had passed.

I've enjoyed watching 5 often, there were elements I liked. I just watched those I mentioned more.

The original crew are my favourite, regardless of the 60s eps being what they are, I'd watched since I was about 3 due to my mom so when next Gen came along I was quite stubborn to start, I still remember the conversation when we watched the first episode. I remember asking 'why can't the others still do this' (being a kid not seperating series from movies, I thought the originals we completely done) my mom explained that they were now getting old and my response was 'but they're not dead!" I did eventually up getting into next gen and liking them too.

[ZariusTwo]

Tarintino's movie would have been a big screen adaptation of "A Piece of the Action"

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-movie.html

[Leo656]

I was really young, like 4 or 5-ish, but I have vivid memories of watching a few episodes of the original series with my Mom late at night on Channel 11, and I watched the animated series on Nick back then. So Trek was always "around" I just never followed it. I did rent the first four movies right around the time the fifth one was about to come out, because I wanted to get into Trek more fully, but to be completely honest I just wasn't ready for that kinda thing yet. All of them bored me to death and I retained almost nothing from watching them.

Thankfully I'm an adult now and have much more patience and much better taste, because when I did a marathon of the entire film series last year with my wife - who grew up absolutely hating Star Trek - we had a grand time. Even the first movie, the one everyone dismisses outright, kept me thoroughly enthralled and entertained. I won't say it isn't "boring"; I can just say that I went into it with no memory of it, no expectations at all (other than, I generally like things more than most people), and that I loved it. I, personally, was not bored, but I can concede and understand that many others would be. I just can't watch a movie like that without being swept up into everything that went into it and just being in awe, is the thing. Fact is, I'm really forgiving of a lot of movies, just because I'm such a mark for the whole process of making them and they fascinate me. I am not at all passive in my viewing experiences, I like to really get into it and go for a ride.

To that end, all the "classic" Trek films impressed me to some degree or other. Except "Nemesis". My lasting impression of that movie was, it was barely five minutes into it before I realized, "Boy, these people really wanted to piggyback on Phantom Menace". And that Bane looked nothing like Picard, but everyone acted like he did, which was silly, and the whole movie just wasn't very good.

I also have this thing where I read a ton about movies before I see them, usually. So a lot of times my expectations are tempered, and stuff I'm told is awful turns out to be not so bad. Like Trek V. Everyone says it's terrible. It's not terrible, it's just cheap. Very, very cheap. Huge step down, visually. But the heart was there, they raised some interesting questions and had a grand ambition that unfortunately the studio cut off at the knees. I appreciate what they wanted to do with it, and I think some of it still shines through in the finished film. And I also think, under the circumstances, it's a lot better than it had any right to be, considering the disaster the shoot was. Story was intriguing, cast was excellent... I can forgive a lot elsewhere if I have to. Like Richard Pryor infamously said about "Superman III", "For a piece of sh*t it smells great!" :lol: I actually think it's pretty good. I was always told to expect the worst from Part V, but I guess those people weren't aware that I've seen Superman IV a million times. Few things can hurt you anymore when you're tempered in raw sh*t. :trazz:

Nemesis aside, I liked 'em all. I prefer the original series ones, though. I really like the TNG cast, but for one thing it's not the show I saw as a kid (although damn, I wish I had because there were some hotties on that show and I'm sorry I missed that!), and for another, the TNG movies swung wildly from "kind of boring" to "trying way too hard NOT to be" from one installment to the next. "First Contact" was fun; "Insurrection" was perfectly harmless but I'm not sure it "needed" to be a feature film, it felt like it just as well could have been a TV episode. Altogether, I just feel like the original series films were tighter, had more of a cohesive direction (II, III, and IV forming a little trilogy within the larger series was neat), and were just plain more fun to watch. I generally dislike comedies, so I was expecting to be groaning a lot at Part IV, but that wasn't the case at all, it was genuinely funny without losing the plot or trying too hard.

Pretty much every movie had me excited to watch the next one, so we got through them all really fast. Then we hit "Nemesis", and frankly I was glad we were out of Trek movies by that point. :lol: Like, if you give that same script to a lesser cast, there's nothing left to see at all. Real shame and a bummer of a way to finish off an altogether pretty fine series of films. Inconsistent as hell but I'd say that they're all various shades of Really Good with only one misfire. That's honestly not a bad batting average!

[Galactus]

I remember when Star Trek 2009 came out it it got rave reviews and how it had made star trek for a new generation tons of positive praise, and how it felt more "like star wars than the prequel trilogy". I had never really checked Star Trek out before so I went to see it and was not impressed, I watched it two more times to force myself into liking it and it just didn't and gave up.

Why is the reboot timeline hated now? I remember the second being called just a poor remake of a beloved Trek film from the past, so the third is also bad? How did they mess something up that was loved so much int he first movie? Granted I never liked it but people seemed to. Is it like The Force Awakens where people didn't realize it sucked until the sequels?[quote]


I think simply having Star Trek back in a much more casual viewer friendly package excited a lot of people. The quasi-reboot did open a lot of possibilities of were the franchise could go and people were excited by it.

Also I remember British reviewer Mark Kermode gushing over a particular aspect that I think really hooked in the audience; the fact that it was a reboot but still meant everything that happened still happened. To those of us who grew up reading comics and multiple Crisis on the Infinite Earths and Zero Hours were used to that kind of thing but regular people the idea you could do something like that seemed mind blowing.

As for why people hated the sequels. As I said people were excited about where it could go especially with modern blockbuster special affects. Would we get cgi Gorns? Tholians? Nope we got what everyone predicted it would be; The Wrath of Khan.

[TigerClaw]

Why is the reboot timeline hated now? I remember the second being called just a poor remake of a beloved Trek film from the past, so the third is also bad? How did they mess something up that was loved so much int he first movie? Granted I never liked it but people seemed to. Is it like The Force Awakens where people didn't realize it sucked until the sequels?[quote]


I think simply having Star Trek back in a much more casual viewer friendly package excited a lot of people. The quasi-reboot did open a lot of possibilities of were the franchise could go and people were excited by it.

Also I remember British reviewer Mark Kermode gushing over a particular aspect that I think really hooked in the audience; the fact that it was a reboot but still meant everything that happened still happened. To those of us who grew up reading comics and multiple Crisis on the Infinite Earths and Zero Hours were used to that kind of thing but regular people the idea you could do something like that seemed mind blowing.

As for why people hated the sequels. As I said people were excited about where it could go especially with modern blockbuster special affects. Would we get cgi Gorns? Tholians? Nope we got what everyone predicted it would be; The Wrath of Khan.
That Star Trek video game that came out years ago was a prequel to Star Trek Into Darkness. And that game was dealing with the Gorn

[Leo656]

I didn't like the whole "reboot timeline" concept simply because it felt like a cheat. I was always curious about the "origins" of the original Enterprise crew and was looking forward to seeing some of those blanks filled in. Then they're like "Oh, it's a parallel timeline, though," so technically none of my questions were really answered because they make it pretty clear from the jump that nothing in Abrams's Trek origin carries over to the "real" Original Series characters and events.

I get that they wanted a blank slate for new viewers while letting older fans have their cake, but I felt a little bait-and-switched.

Then the sequel doubled-down on it by doing the Khan thing... which in this universe has zero build-up and no reason for ANY of the characters to even care, so they waste 2/3s of the movie explaining to you why you're supposed to care. It's like "Yeaaaaah, baby, you older fans get why this is important! YOU get why this dramatic music plays when he says his name! I mean... these movies aren't really for you, and you hate this entire exercise, and you're gonna see right through it because it's paper-thin, and newer fans are only gonna know 'Khan' as a Name and not a Character... but still... dude he said his name was KHAN and they played the dramatic music, you guys!"

They wanted all of the emotional investment without doing any of the work to establish it whatsoever. And it was transparent pandering even to a neophyte like me.

[TigerClaw]

I would've loved if they did the Star Trek 4 with George Kirk returning. But I figured that Chris Hemsworth is such a big star now.

That he be asking for more money to be in it.

[Galactus]

I didn't like the whole "reboot timeline" concept simply because it felt like a cheat. I was always curious about the "origins" of the original Enterprise crew and was looking forward to seeing some of those blanks filled in. Then they're like "Oh, it's a parallel timeline, though," so technically none of my questions were really answered because they make it pretty clear from the jump that nothing in Abrams's Trek origin carries over to the "real" Original Series characters and events.

I get that they wanted a blank slate for new viewers while letting older fans have their cake, but I felt a little bait-and-switched.

I think it worked for the audience it was supposed to attract. If they'd said at the start they were still going to make TV shows set in the 'prime' universe I think longtime fans would have been more receptive to the movie. Then again given the divisive nature of those shows maybe not :lol:.

I tend to think the movie hit the right beats and references that more casual fans would know from Star Trek. I also think the cast did a great job balancing doing an impression of the TOS characters and bringing their own interpretation.

Then the sequel doubled-down on it by doing the Khan thing... which in this universe has zero build-up and no reason for ANY of the characters to even care, so they waste 2/3s of the movie explaining to you why you're supposed to care. It's like "Yeaaaaah, baby, you older fans get why this is important! YOU get why this dramatic music plays when he says his name! I mean... these movies aren't really for you, and you hate this entire exercise, and you're gonna see right through it because it's paper-thin, and newer fans are only gonna know 'Khan' as a Name and not a Character... but still... dude he said his name was KHAN and they played the dramatic music, you guys!"

They wanted all of the emotional investment without doing any of the work to establish it whatsoever. And it was transparent pandering even to a neophyte like me.

All true. I would also add that it started this era of Star Treks obsession with Section 31.

To me referencing an obscure-ish part of one of the least watched (but arguably best series) was a sign that the writer was a true fan but then this movie using it meant that this era of Trek became fixated on Section 31 and other shady espionage agencies.

I would've loved if they did the Star Trek 4 with George Kirk returning. But I figured that Chris Hemsworth is such a big star now.

That he be asking for more money to be in it.

Kinda strange to think Hemsworth is now a bigger deal that Pine. Since Ragnarok he's really winning the battle of the Chris-es.

Strangely I think you could get the Enterprise crew back together more easily than you could Hemsworth right now.

[Andrew NDB]

I didn't like the whole "reboot timeline" concept simply because it felt like a cheat. I was always curious about the "origins" of the original Enterprise crew and was looking forward to seeing some of those blanks filled in. Then they're like "Oh, it's a parallel timeline, though," so technically none of my questions were really answered because they make it pretty clear from the jump that nothing in Abrams's Trek origin carries over to the "real" Original Series characters and events.

Yeah, like I've always said, it's a brain dead pitch. It's literally, "What if Kirk and Spock... weren't Kirk and Spock?" Meaning, these new versions have fundamentally different paths. In the Prime timeline, Kirk had a great relationship with his dad growing up. In JJ's, Kirk never had a father so he's this rebel guy. In the Prime timeline, Spock had a great relationship with his mother. In JJ's, Spock watches his mother die in front of him right along with his whole planet. These aren't even the same characters now. So why even use them? Just for name value for people who never saw anything with them in it? Dumb.

All true. I would also add that it started this era of Star Treks obsession with Section 31.

Yet fundamentally not understanding what Section 31 is, at the same time. Black badges???

Strangely I think you could get the Enterprise crew back together more easily than you could Hemsworth right now.

Kind of weird that they haven't. The amount of time that's passed since ENT went off the air... that's about the right number of years between the end of the show and the beginning of the Romulan War. Kurtzman's clucks seem to love war and all that... why not? Win win. We get an ENT continuation and "conclusion," and they get more grimdark stuff.

I would've loved if they did the Star Trek 4 with George Kirk returning. But I figured that Chris Hemsworth is such a big star now.

Is he, though? He has yet to lead a successful movie that isn't called "Thor." And the only new Kelvin movie I'm remotely interested in seeing is one that repairs the timeline and voids it. And maybe end it with someone bringing "Spock Prime"'s body back to the Prime timeline, fer chrissakes.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I think the cast really elevated the material of the newer Trek movies by a lot. I'm always very open that with any movie or TV show, if I really like the cast and their performance I can let a lot of other things slide. I'm not a huge Zoe Saldana fan, but she was alright I guess, and everyone else was really, really good.

Without that specific cast though, I kinda don't think those movies would have done as well as they even did. Andrew raises some great points and even I, as a "super casual at best" fan, wanted to see the REAL background of these iconic characters, not some fanfic stuff that Abams made up just because he couldn't figure out a way to make the original material workable. He Geoff Johns'ed us, the rat bastard! :lol:

In all seriousness, though, Andrew, one point you made stands out above the rest. I've said this myself a million times. You CAN'T change every single thing about a character's entire background, upbringing, and history, and insist that it's still the same character just because they share a name and a haircut. That's not how it works! People - and in turn "characters" - are nothing but a sum total of their entire life's worth of experiences. You change, shift around, or erase and replace those experiences, you now have a completely different character using a familiar name for attention. Nothing more.

That's a huge problem with... "certain TMNT cartoons which recently had an abrupt end" which I won't name because it's already done to death in the proper section. :trazz: But it's the same fundamental problem: How can you say these are even the same characters when Every Single Thing about them is totally different? They share a name... that's it! It's so, so, SO lazy when writers do this kinda sh*t. This is why "It's just different, man!" doesn't fly. That's a poor excuse to simply let hack writers try and get their own hacky ideas over. It's lazy and it's arrogant.

Regarding Hemsworth, I'm both surprised and a little bit upset that he even has a career after "Chickbusters". It seems to have derailed everyone else, but he still gets work. He's lucky he already had the Thor gimmick locked up, I guess. Not that I'm in any way still thrilled about that, either, given what he insisted on turning it into. But that's another conversation.

But yeah, I liked him before Chickbusters, and he was so unbearable in that, I did a complete 180 and decided I never wanna see him again in anything. But to be fair, that's true of everyone in that movie, not just him. I'd be thrilled if absolutely none of those people ever worked in front of a camera for at least the rest of MY life. That'd be just super.

[Andrew NDB]

He was OK in that Moby Dick movie. But it didn't make any money.

[Leo656]

I edited my post to give you more of the credit your most valid points deserve.

Also... wow, I never even heard about that movie, I'm really out of the loop. :lol: I liked him in "Cabin in the Woods". I saw that AFTER Chickbusters so seeing him wipe out on that force field and tumble down the gorge gave me a real thrill. :lol:

But yeah, I thought he was a good Thor, until he got bored with playing "Thor" and decided that Thor should just be a lazy, quippy, scruffy douchebro. Y'know he's wearing an Ed Hardy shirt under that f*cking armor now, you just f*cking know it. :lol:

Again, if you have to change everything that's fundamental and essential about a character to suit YOU, then 1. You're not much of an "actor" (or "writer", depending on the situation), and 2. You're a lazy, arrogant putz.

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, I think the cast really elevated the material of the newer Trek movies by a lot.

Don't forget the over-inflated budget. Nemesis before it had a budget of 60 million (by comparison, First Contact, the last good Star Trek movie, had a budget of 46 million, Generations 38, Star Trek VI 27). Star Trek 2009 had a 140 million dollar budget.

I'm always very open that with any movie or TV show, if I really like the cast and their performance I can let a lot of other things slide. I'm not a huge Zoe Saldana fan, but she was alright I guess, and everyone else was really, really good.

I wouldn't go that far. I think they were all serviceable save for Karl Urban, who REALLY channeled Bones. The odd duck is Simon Pegg, who doesn't seem anything like Scotty, though he's still pretty OK.

In all seriousness, though, Andrew, one point you made stands out above the rest. I've said this myself a million times. You CAN'T change every single thing about a character's entire background, upbringing, and history, and insist that it's still the same character just because they share a name and a haircut. That's not how it works! People - and in turn "characters" - are nothing but a sum total of their entire life's worth of experiences. You change, shift around, or erase and replace those experiences, you now have a completely different character using a familiar name for attention. Nothing more.

And replace "Kirk earned his career through hard work, working his way up the ranks over multiple ships and years" with just "DESTINY!" And being at the right place and time to take command on the bridge of the Enterprise as basically a nobody. And it stuck.

Stupid.

Regarding Hemsworth, I'm both surprised and a little bit upset that he even has a career after "Chickbusters". It seems to have derailed everyone else, but he still gets work. He's lucky he already had the Thor gimmick locked up, I guess. Not that I'm in any way still thrilled about that, either, given what he insisted on turning it into. But that's another conversation.

Well, he was a fifth stringer in that movie. I don't think he necessarily went down with that ship... moreso, the other "ships" of movies he actually led that tanked.

Also... wow, I never even heard about that movie, I'm really out of the loop. :lol: I liked him in "Cabin in the Woods". I saw that AFTER Chickbusters so seeing him wipe out on that force field and tumble down the gorge gave me a real thrill. :lol:

Cabin in the Woods was cool. Not revolutionary, but good stuff. Though I'm not sure even that made a lot of money, and he wasn't the lead in it.

But yeah, I thought he was a good Thor, until he got bored with playing "Thor" and decided that Thor should just be a lazy, quippy, scruffy douchebro. Y'know he's wearing an Ed Hardy shirt under that f*cking armor now, you just f*cking know it. :lol:

I sincerely doubt that HE decided any of those things (nor do I think he was ever given creative input on any level about Thor, ever). Rather, these were things decided for him and given for him to do and be.

Again, if you have to change everything that's fundamental and essential about a character to suit YOU, then 1. You're not much of an "actor" (or "writer", depending on the situation), and 2. You're a lazy, arrogant putz.

I think it's less "suit YOU" as much as it's guys like Abrams or whoever scratching their heads and going, "THIS is what audiences want."

[Galactus]

Yeah, like I've always said, it's a brain dead pitch. It's literally, "What if Kirk and Spock... weren't Kirk and Spock?" Meaning, these new versions have fundamentally different paths. In the Prime timeline, Kirk had a great relationship with his dad growing up. In JJ's, Kirk never had a father so he's this rebel guy. In the Prime timeline, Spock had a great relationship with his mother. In JJ's, Spock watches his mother die in front of him right along with his whole planet. These aren't even the same characters now. So why even use them? Just for name value for people who never saw anything with them in it? Dumb

I know he's a divisive character but Moviebob had some good thoughts on that funnily enough in a video about TMNT (2014) that the underlying idea behind that is that no matter how different Kirk and Spock's lives are they are still destined to end up the same Kirk and Spock we know from the TV show. Prime Universe Spock is the wizard that makes it happen like a god subtly guiding the characters to become who they are supposed to be.

Personally that could have been a good idea to explore in the sequel. Like Kirk has faith that he and Spock will make a great team because he knows they were in the prime universe but Spock disagrees and doesn't think that because they are great friends in another universe doesn't mean they should be.

Kind of weird that they haven't. The amount of time that's passed since ENT went off the air... that's about the right number of years between the end of the show and the beginning of the Romulan War. Kurtzman's clucks seem to love war and all that... why not? Win win. We get an ENT continuation and "conclusion," and they get more grimdark stuff.

Actually I meant the Enterprise crew of the Abrams movies. None of them seem to have a lot going in comparison to Hemsworth.

Although you're right that it's weird they haven't portrayed the Romulan war on screen given Kurtzman's propensity for darker Trek stories.

I'd imagine that it had a lot to do how engrained it is that humans and Romulans had not actually seen each other in person during the war. That was always a screwy concept. Enterprise managed to get around that with their mini Romulan War arc with that remote controlled ship but I don't think you could sustain that as the basis for a whole series.

[Andrew NDB]

I know he's a divisive character but Moviebob had some good thoughts on that funnily enough in a video about TMNT (2014) that the underlying idea behind that is that no matter how different Kirk and Spock's lives are they are still destined to end up the same Kirk and Spock we know from the TV show.

I'm sure that was the impetus. Which is the worst, most laziest screenwriting trope. Rather than make something earned or deserved... it is "BY THE POWER OF DESTINY!" that they just get it handed to them.

And they weren't the same Kirk and Spock we know from the TV show. Unless Spock was going around banging crew left and right, raging about not under the influence of alien stuff on TOS (hint: he didn't).

Personally that could have been a good idea to explore in the sequel. Like Kirk has faith that he and Spock will make a great team because he knows they were in the prime universe but Spock disagrees and doesn't think that because they are great friends in another universe doesn't mean they should be.

I cast a vote of "who cares" for this. Though they could do worse.

Actually I meant the Enterprise crew of the Abrams movies. None of them seem to have a lot going in comparison to Hemsworth.

Oh.

I'd imagine that it had a lot to do how engrained it is that humans and Romulans had not actually seen each other in person during the war. That was always a screwy concept. Enterprise managed to get around that with their mini Romulan War arc with that remote controlled ship but I don't think you could sustain that as the basis for a whole series.

It would be tricky, for sure. But you could play it like... one of the many war movies of yore, where it's like 50/50. Now we see the humans' POV, now we see the Romulans. Knowing Kurtzman, though, the Federation would just see the Romulans and there wouldn't be any explanation at all.

[Leo656]

I sincerely doubt that HE decided any of those things (nor do I think he was ever given creative input on any level about Thor, ever). Rather, these were things decided for him and given for him to do and be.



No, on the more recent movies he did have input, and lots of it. I'm too tired for Google-Fu, but much was said from Ragnarok through the last couple Avengers movies that Chris openly petitioned for Thor's character to change in order to lean more into his own personality and allow him to do more comedy as that's his preference. He also hates working out and was whining about having to get into "Thor Shape" as far back as the second Thor movie. Ragnarok makes a billion dollars, he suddenly has more "pull", and Surprise! Thor's fat now and he no longer has to work out for the role.

I'm not gonna dig up the interviews but Hemsworth was basically "booking himself" as Thor for the last three appearances. It wasn't any secret. People are very Love It or Hate It about the whole thing, but he had a LOT of creative input on his character towards the end. HE made most of those choices, and they just let him do it because people, for some reason, thought Ragnarok was funny.

I, personally, don't feel like Marvel's big, dramatic, Shakespearian character who's always oh-so-serious, has any business being a Dudebro in a fart joke movie. But I guess that's why I'm not a billionaire!!! :tgrumble:

It's a huge problem I have with the current generation of "actors": They don't act, they just find excuses to play themselves. Not everyone is Nicholson, you clowns. Get some f*cking range or go back to Starbucks.

[Galactus]

It would be tricky, for sure. But you could play it like... one of the many war movies of yore, where it's like 50/50. Now we see the humans' POV, now we see the Romulans. Knowing Kurtzman, though, the Federation would just see the Romulans and there wouldn't be any explanation at all.

I think Enteprise played fast and loose with the beginnings of the Romulan war. It was supposed to be fought with non warp capable ships. Since Enteprise was all about their first warp capable star ship that was impossible. Earth would likely had a sizeable fleet of star ships by the time the actual Romulan War came around.

Trying to adhere to Star Trek continuity is impossible. Remember Picard saying in First Contact (the TV episode not the movie) that a disastrous first contact with the Klingins led to centuries of war. That always seemed a bit screwy since the Klingon/Federation relationship in TOS was presented more akin to a Cold War and Enteprise actually depicted first contact between humans and Klingons and it was fairly amicable. Discovery depicted a proper war with the Klingons but it certainly didn't last for centuries.

When you factor all this in I imagine it was an easy decision for Abrams to just reboot the timeline.

[Leo656]

My problem with that is, if you're a writer brought onto an established franchise,"making sense of continuity" comes with the job. If you just wanna make up your own stuff, don't jump onto an established property for an easy paycheck, make your own ideas into your own property and try to sell it that way.

People don't do that because it's "hard", and because odds are, their New Ideas aren't good enough to hold water on their own. They need a tether, something established and well-liked, to act as a smoke screen and to force some connection between the writer's material and the audience.

Reboots are a cheap way to make a fast buck, 99% of the time. Things generally are not SO far screwed that the only way to move forward is to completely disregard the past. DC's 1986 reboot was like, the one time it was entirely justified and even necessary. But for the life of me I can't think of anything else that was ever so screwed that "Let's just start all over" was mandatory.

Again, I don't follow Trek very closely at all, and I'm sure there were lots of inconsistencies. But I have to believe there was SOME way to retain continuity and still move forward. Reboots are for hacks.

Unless your name is John Byrne or Marv Wolfman. In that case, whatever you come up with is gonna be better than the precedent, anyway. :lol: But that's it!

[Andrew NDB]

You know what the best way to avoid continuity problems in the 22nd, 23rd century is? Don't make a show or movie in them.

Go FORWARD. Like I've always said. So tired of them dicking around in the past.

[Galactus]

Yeah but Star Trek continuity is especially complex and contradictory that I don't blame writers for simply throwing their hands up and simply ignoring it sometimes.

You know what the best way to avoid continuity problems in the 22nd, 23rd century is? Don't make a show or movie in them.

Go FORWARD. Like I've always said. So tired of them dicking around in the past.

Yes. Discovery was always going to be divisive due to the culture wars stuff that dogs genre shows like this now but I think it would have been better received if it had been set after Nemesis say in the late 24th or early 25th century. There would no people to shout why they have holo communicators or Star Wars style repair droids and you could buy differing design aesthetics or changes to Klingon anatomy etc.

Other than maybe piggybacking on the 'success' of the recent movies I don't see why they insist on setting shows around the TOS era.

[Andrew NDB]

It's so they can potentially always bring in original Enterprise, Kirk and/or Spock because they think those are the only things that sell.

[Galactus]

Probably although you'd think they'd feel the same about 24th century characters particularly Next Gen ones who are this point just as iconic and are still with us, most of whom would be very willing to go for guest spots.

[Andrew NDB]

Probably although you'd think they'd feel the same about 24th century characters particularly Next Gen ones who are this point just as iconic and are still with us, most of whom would be very willing to go for guest spots.

They're kind of only figuring out that now. A bit.

Maybe they get STP season 2 right and probably they don't. What they should have done from jump was a far off series (25th century+) with a shiny new Enterprise and a new crew. They could have all the SJW stuff they wanted and we could debate if it's right or wrong... but at least it would "fit" and it wouldn't invite fan division.

Yes, STD is going to the 85th century in its third season... but nobody cares about anymore. It wore out its welcome.

[Galactus]

I can understand them wanting Picard to be largely it's own thing rather than having each episode revolve around reuniting with a member of the Next Gen crew.

I'm not sure I'd go for a series set far off from the Next Gen - Voyager era. Like I said I'd still like to see some of the 24th century characters show up although time travel is a frequent thing in Star Trek. Maybe wrap up that Temporal Cold War from Enterprise "hey Marina how would you like to be a temporal agent?" A deranged Barclay could be shadowy future guy.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Tarintino's movie would have been a big screen adaptation of "A Piece of the Action"

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-movie.html

That sounds terrible.

Kind of weird that they haven't. The amount of time that's passed since ENT went off the air... that's about the right number of years between the end of the show and the beginning of the Romulan War. Kurtzman's clucks seem to love war and all that... why not? Win win. We get an ENT continuation and "conclusion," and they get more grimdark stuff.

I've said the same thing, numerous times. Would be all in for a "Star Trek: Columbia" or "Enterprise: Romulan War" series bringing everybody back (and undoing Trip's stupid death).

Yeah, I think the cast really elevated the material of the newer Trek movies by a lot. I'm always very open that with any movie or TV show, if I really like the cast and their performance I can let a lot of other things slide. I'm not a huge Zoe Saldana fan, but she was alright I guess, and everyone else was really, really good.

The cast is the only good thing about those movies. Terribly written, stupid as hell, but stellar casting. And I'm not a Zoe fan either, but she does a'ight.

You know what the best way to avoid continuity problems in the 22nd, 23rd century is? Don't make a show or movie in them.

Go FORWARD. Like I've always said. So tired of them dicking around in the past.

Even when they choose to go to the future, they won't even go forward more than 15 years. Hooray, everybody disrespects Picard now! What FUN!

It's so they can potentially always bring in original Enterprise, Kirk and/or Spock because they think those are the only things that sell.

Exactly.

Yes, STD is going to the 85th century in its third season... but nobody cares about anymore. It wore out its welcome.

It's so lazy, and just the writers desperately clinging to this show that has so many fvcking problems. Bringing Spock and Pike into the show didn't fix ****; neither will jumping 1000 years into the future.

[Leo656]

The cast is the only good thing about those movies. Terribly written, stupid as hell, but stellar casting. And I'm not a Zoe fan either, but she does a'ight.


Like, she's not unattractive, but it baffles me why so many people act like she's a jaw-dropping stunner. She's alright. But just "alright". She was kinda hot in Trek and oddly also kinda hot as a big blue cat in "Avatar", but everything else I've seen her in, she's just "Pretty Okay, I Guess."

To me she kinda looks like a big praying mantis. :lol: I've ruined many people's masturbation fantasies with that one, because pretty much everyone says they never considered that before but now they can't un-see it. :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Like, she's not unattractive, but it baffles me why so many people act like she's a jaw-dropping stunner. She's alright. But just "alright". She was kinda hot in Trek and oddly also kinda hot as a big blue cat in "Avatar", but everything else I've seen her in, she's just "Pretty Okay, I Guess."

To me she kinda looks like a big praying mantis. :lol: I've ruined many people's masturbation fantasies with that one, because pretty much everyone says they never considered that before but now they can't un-see it. :lol:

I really like her in The Losers. And I liked her as Gamora but only in Infinity War, with the whole "fvck you dad, whoops, I'm dead now" bit.

But usually, I'm not moved by her acting. She's pretty wooden. Reminds me of Vin Diesel, with the whole "stoic badass who growls all his/her lines" thing.

[Leo656]

Huh, maybe that's it. I partly liked her in Trek because she showed more personality than I'm used to. Didn't play it much like the "real" Uhura but she wasn't a plank, so there's that.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Huh, maybe that's it. I partly liked her in Trek because she showed more personality than I'm used to. Didn't play it much like the "real" Uhura but she wasn't a plank, so there's that.

I mean, if she played it like the REAL Uhura, all she'd do is cling to Captain Kirk, whisper that she's scared, and then go back to opening all those hailing frequencies.

Nichelle Nichols was amazing, but Original Star Trek did NOT give her much to work with. At least she had a better haircut than Walter Koenig.

[Leo656]

:lol: You do raise interesting points, sir.

[Andrew NDB]

I like Zoe just fine. Was decent in "Colombiana," too, which in truth was a sequel to "The Professional" that got retooled when they couldn't get Portman back on board (because Luc Besson wouldn't direct)... but also PG-13. :(

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Zoe was alright in the recent movies, as was pretty much everyone else. Nothing great, but far from bad.

The films themselves aren't really that great to be honest. To be fair, I haven't seen the third one, so I don't know what that one is like.

I've never seen much of any Star Trek show/movie. I've seen an episode or so of Enterprise, The opening part of Star Trek V, the entirety of The voyage home and the first two reboot movies. Not much of what I've seen really interested me

[Leo656]

I've always just been so overwhelmed by the sheer mass of content. It's an intimidating franchise to get into. "Back in my day" there were TWO shows and about 5 or 6 movies. Now? Ooof. I don't envy anyone who'd up and decide to try and wade into the franchise NOW.

I kinda feel like if I really get into anything, it'll just be the Original Series (easy since I own it), Next Generation, and Voyager. Those seem pretty "safe" and are generally pretty regarded from what I've seen. Everything else seems like a real mixed bag, and there's just so MUCH of it that I'm not sure it'd be worth my time in the end.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Is there a way to watch the original series in it's unremastered version? I haven't got much interest to watch it with the special effects changed and 'improved'

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I kinda feel like if I really get into anything, it'll just be the Original Series (easy since I own it), Next Generation, and Voyager. Those seem pretty "safe" and are generally pretty regarded from what I've seen. Everything else seems like a real mixed bag, and there's just so MUCH of it that I'm not sure it'd be worth my time in the end.

No Deep Space Nine?

Man, why don't you piss all over my dog and punch me in the eye while you're at it?

[Leo656]

Is there a way to watch the original series in it's unremastered version? I haven't got much interest to watch it with the special effects changed and 'improved'

I swore on my DVD set it was optional, but I forget.

No Deep Space Nine?

Man, why don't you piss all over my dog and punch me in the eye while you're at it?

Because I'd rather punch dogs and piss on people, DUH.

I honestly don't know a single thing about DS9, I'm sorry. :lol: Who are the hotties, and how hot are they? You know me, that's like 8/10s of what gets me interested. :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I honestly don't know a single thing about DS9, I'm sorry. :lol: Who are the hotties, and how hot are they? You know me, that's like 8/10s of what gets me interested. :lol:

Jadzia, Kira, Leeta, Ezri, Jennifer, and BENJAMIN LAFAYETTE SISKO.

You horndog cad.

[Leo656]

Alright, counterpoint: If they're such smokin' little pistols how come I never heard of any of 'em until right this minute?

Troi, Seven of Nine, these names I recognize... I still don't know how Dr. Crusher escaped being mentioned to me on account'a she's a "honey", too... but those names you mentioned are all Greek to me, hepcat!

"Honeys", that's what my Dad used to call 'em. We'd be at the mall and a bunch of hot girls would walk past, and he'd utter "Heeee-eeeyyy, a flock'a honeys!" way too loud. That's the stuff I miss. So yeah I figure I can bring it back. :trazz:

[ZariusTwo]

I honestly don't know a single thing about DS9, I'm sorry. :lol:

It's Babylon 5. Watch that instead:lol:

[Leo656]

Aaaaaalright, now I have NO idea what's going on. :lol:

Babylon 5? That some kinda boner pill?

[Galactus]

Because I'd rather punch dogs and piss on people, DUH.

I honestly don't know a single thing about DS9, I'm sorry. :lol: Who are the hotties, and how hot are they? You know me, that's like 8/10s of what gets me interested. :lol:

Jadzia Dax - Terry Farrell (v. good in the anniversary episode where the crew go back in time to meet Kirk and co and she wears the mini skirt uniform) and as a bonus she was a genuine fan that got to do the show and is now married to Leonard Nimoy's son.

Kira - Nana Vistor and Ezri who joins the cast in the last season she's cute. There is also Leeta played by Chase Masterson who is a recurring guest star. You'll like her if you like big up top.

Aaaaaalright, now I have NO idea what's going on. :lol:

Babylon 5? That some kinda boner pill?

The TV show J Michael Straczynski did inbetween the cartoons he did in the 80s to the comics he did in the 2000s.

Similar-ish concepts to Deep Space Nine, aired around the same time. Some of their fans feel that DS9 were copying them. Ambitious show but suffered from a lower budget than it needed to portray it's concepts.

DS9 is a better overall product. It's the overlooked middle child of the 90s Trek shows but people who watch it really love it. It tried things the other shows didn't. Starts off slow being set on a space station instead of a constantly travelling ship but did action very well in the later seasons. Some of the fleet battles are excellent.

[ZariusTwo]

DS9 is a better overall product.

I used to think that, but god is it a slog to get through now, and becomes increasingly bleak and depressing in it's final years, made all the worse by the fact all the seedier stuff Sisko got up to during the war did lead to a shadier federation that departed wholesale from Gene's vision and plauged many of the Trek spin-off media that followed.

Compared to B5 which tells it's story in record time and fewer seasons while being occasionally edgy AND consistently uplifting, and has a tenacious band of inspirational characters who's choices and compromises make them either more revered or ultimately humbled, with the audience feeling like they shouldn't abandon them on either side of the coin.

DS9 ripped B5 off. The fans know it, JMS for sure knows this, but because B5 is more of a niche interest and Trek is the monster franchise, Trekkies are always going to pretend they ignited that wheel of fire

So what if DS9 had the better fights? B5 is the smarter show and had the better stories...largely all written by one man, JMS himself.

Babylon 5? That some kinda boner pill?

Well Claudia Christensen (who plays Ivanova) is well fit.:lol:

[Leo656]

J Michael Straczynski

Ouch. :ohwell:

Full disclosure, I HATE his Superman writing. Like he totally doesn't execute my favorite fictional character well at all. And his He-Man episodes were arguably some of the show's worst, so that's 0 for 2 on him taking a crack at things I love. Honest answer, what are the odds I'll like his writing on anything else, knowing that I'd be going into it with a bias whether I want to or not?

Because I really love Superman, and I really love He-Man, but I hate what he did with both of them, mostly. Anything he does will have to earn my respect. Be honest: How likely is that? Would it play better seeing as how I have no personal attachment to the characters or universe?

I'll be honest, I didn't know his He-Man's were bad until after the fact. It was more "Wow, this wasn't a great episode," and THEN I found out he wrote it. So it wasn't like I was even trying to form a bias, it just turned out that way.

So yeah, you seen the show, I didn't. Really think it might win me over? Stranger things have certainly happened, I'm just wondering.

[ZariusTwo]

What was it about JMS' He-Man stories you didn't like? Any particular moral feel heavy-handed? Unlikable character maybe? Just curious, you've got an eye for plot bro.

And yeah, when JMS is off his game, he's the pits, even I'll admit that, just ask any Spider-Man fan who had to put up with the unholy trinity of Spider-Man stories "Sins Past", "The Other" and "One More Day" (I like "Sins Past" though, due to my growing dislike for all things Gwen Stacy, so for me that's substituted by the 9/11 issue where terrorists Magneto and Doctor Doom are seen mourning a terrorist attack in a city they've threatened numerous times)

[Leo656]

Didn't he write that circus one? That was the sh*ts. Unless it was someone else and I simply misremember.

I confess, 130 episodes, it's hard to remember who wrote what. :ohwell: And it's been a while since I watched the whole series, too. I just remember feeling underwhelmed by some of the ones his name was on, but I can't recall specifics at the moment.

You know me though, man. I take a LOT of things Way Too Seriously and He-Man is absolutely one of those things. :lol:

Thank you very much for the compliment, by the way. Coming from you that means a lot. :)

for me that's substituted by the 9/11 issue where terrorists Magneto and Doctor Doom are seen mourning a terrorist attack in a city they've threatened numerous times)

Good LORD was that some trash. :lol: I know people get all weepy and sentimental about it, but as you pointed out... whaaaaaaat the fuuuuuuuuck is THAT about? :lol: That was the most one-dimensional, emotionally manipulative bullsh*t since Roger Smith tried to produce "Oscar Gold". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Like what, was Doom crying because HE didn't blow up the Towers? Because otherwise, that sh*t makes ZERO sense.

I'm... kind of inclined to think JMS is sort of a hack who had a few good ones and spent the rest of his time getting by on charm and schmaltz. I'm hardly an expert, it's just what I've seen so far.

He had A YEAR to do his "definitive" Superman story, and he had him take a long, sad walk. :ohwell: Like... WHY? "WHO told you this was GOOD, brother?"

[ZariusTwo]

Didn't he write that circus one? That was the sh*ts. Unless it was someone else and I simply misremember.

Really? Oh god, that is probably my strongest He-Man memory. I reenacted that whole episode at school and got held back after hometime for disrupting lessons:lol:

[Galactus]

I used to think that, but god is it a slog to get through now, and becomes increasingly bleak and depressing in it's final years, made all the worse by the fact all the seedier stuff Sisko got up to during the war did lead to a shadier federation that departed wholesale from Gene's vision and plauged many of the Trek spin-off media that followed

I never thought the last two seasons were bleak and depressing at all. Many of the episodes were not even explicitly about the war which I actually think is to the seasons detriment. They are supposed to be at war and playing baseball or nipping off to the Vic's to listen to some swing music.

True DS9 did more than any other series to show that the Federation and Starfleet wasn't as perfect as presented but that was already there in Next Gen. I would agree that subsequent spin offs have focused on war and seedy organisations and Federation corruption a bit too much. It's weird just how much this little watched series ended up influencing so much of the franchise and not in such positive ways but DS9 doing it was fine.

I'd say Star Trek goes well beyond Roddenberry but I wouldn't say any of this was against his vision. Andromeda is basically what if the Federation collapsed under its own corruption.

Ouch. :ohwell:

Full disclosure, I HATE his Superman writing. Like he totally doesn't execute my favorite fictional character well at all. And his He-Man episodes were arguably some of the show's worst, so that's 0 for 2 on him taking a crack at things I love. Honest answer, what are the odds I'll like his writing on anything else, knowing that I'd be going into it with a bias whether I want to or not?

Because I really love Superman, and I really love He-Man, but I hate what he did with both of them, mostly. Anything he does will have to earn my respect. Be honest: How likely is that? Would it play better seeing as how I have no personal attachment to the characters or universe?

I'll be honest, I didn't know his He-Man's were bad until after the fact. It was more "Wow, this wasn't a great episode," and THEN I found out he wrote it. So it wasn't like I was even trying to form a bias, it just turned out that way.

So yeah, you seen the show, I didn't. Really think it might win me over? Stranger things have certainly happened, I'm just wondering.

Babylon 5?

It's an acquired taste.

[Leo656]

Really? Oh god, that is probably my strongest He-Man memory. I reenacted that whole episode at school and got held back after hometime for disrupting lessons:lol:

If I hated or even disliked even ONE episode, it was that one. :lol: And I love everything about that show with absolutely zero irony.

"In today's story, I learned that Zarius as a child was just as much of a rapscallion as he is as an adult! Remember kids, if you're going to act out your favorite cartoons in front of your classmates, make sure it's something like 'Diamond Ray of Disappearance', and not a pile of crap!" :lol:

You're Alright, You.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I used to think that, but god is it a slog to get through now, and becomes increasingly bleak and depressing in it's final years, made all the worse by the fact all the seedier stuff Sisko got up to during the war did lead to a shadier federation that departed wholesale from Gene's vision and plauged many of the Trek spin-off media that followed.

Don't you badmouth my main man Sisko, dude. Not cool. All he did was forge evidence of a Dominion conspiracy. GARAK killed those people. :tlol:

Compared to B5 which tells it's story in record time and fewer seasons while being occasionally edgy AND consistently uplifting, and has a tenacious band of inspirational characters who's choices and compromises make them either more revered or ultimately humbled, with the audience feeling like they shouldn't abandon them on either side of the coin.

DS9 ripped B5 off. The fans know it, JMS for sure knows this, but because B5 is more of a niche interest and Trek is the monster franchise, Trekkies are always going to pretend they ignited that wheel of fire

So what if DS9 had the better fights? B5 is the smarter show and had the better stories...largely all written by one man, JMS himself.

I've heard compelling arguments for both sides, whether or not DS9 ripped off B5. Frankly, I don't care; I wasn't there. I like what I like.

Still haven't had a chance to watch Babylon 5... do you know if any streaming services host it?

[Galactus]

Don't you badmouth my main man Sisko, dude. Not cool. All he did was forge evidence of a Dominion conspiracy. GARAK killed those people. :tlol:

He did pretty much order Worf to kill Gowron and take control of the Empire. Worf very rarely walked the walk as a Klingon I doubt if he'd have done it if it wasn't for Sisko.

Out of curiosity I just skimmed through which episodes of He-Man he wrote. Honestly not some bad stuff there that I recall.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

He did pretty much order Worf to kill Gowron and take control of the Empire. Worf very rarely walked the walk as a Klingon I doubt if he'd have done it if it wasn't for Sisko.

Out of curiosity I just skimmed through which episodes of He-Man he wrote. Honestly not some bad stuff there that I recall.

Okay, yeah, but that's KLINGON politics. Stabbing a motherfvcker is legal in their system.

At least Sisko didn't betray Michelle Yeoh and leave her corpse to be cannibalized by Alien-style Klingons. THAT'S some $hitty Star Trek right there.

[ZariusTwo]

Still haven't had a chance to watch Babylon 5... do you know if any streaming services host it?

It's available to stream on the UK version of Amazon Prime.

[Leo656]

Out of curiosity I just skimmed through which episodes of He-Man he wrote. Honestly not some bad stuff there that I recall.

Maybe it really was just the one or two clunkers, then. That's entirely possible. It's been YEARS since I did a full-series run, but I really, really, REALLY need to.

I've seen every episode dozens of times, but... mostly while it was originally on, and I was 3-6 years old. I wasn't looking at who wrote what, or which were Good or Bad episodes. They were all good to me back then!

So yeah, I'll definitely refresh my memory soon. Maybe I'm being too harsh on JMS's He-Man.

"Superman: Grounded" was dogsh*t though. I ain't bending on that one! :trazz:

[Galactus]

Okay, yeah, but that's KLINGON politics. Stabbing a motherfvcker is legal in their system.

Not legal on the station though and very contrary to the Prime Directive (although the barely mentioned that on DS9). A couple of seasons earlier he went ballistic when Worf was helping his brother to commit ritual suicide. It shows how much Sisko changed during the series.

Maybe it really was just the one or two clunkers, then. That's entirely possible. It's been YEARS since I did a full-series run, but I really, really, REALLY need to.

I've seen every episode dozens of times, but... mostly while it was originally on, and I was 3-6 years old. I wasn't looking at who wrote what, or which were Good or Bad episodes. They were all good to me back then!

So yeah, I'll definitely refresh my memory soon. Maybe I'm being too harsh on JMS's He-Man.

"Superman: Grounded" was dogsh*t though. I ain't bending on that one! :trazz:

Origin of the Sorceress, Journey to Stone City, The Games and The Cold Zone are ones ones that I remember as being good. Maybe your tastes are different but The Greatest Show on Eternia (or the circus one) isn't him.

I liked his Amazing Spider-Man work. His bad stories were the editorially mandated ones so I don't hold those against him. His Thor run was okay. I didn't read much of Grounded but what I did I didn't care for at all. I'd say he's done some good work, bad work and some kinda in between work.

[Leo656]

Not everyone can be Dan Jurgens, I guess. :trazz:

Thanks for clarification, definitely faulty memory on my end. All the more reason to re-watch soon.

The timing of "Grounded" made it even worse. Superman had been on New Krypton for a year (which felt more like three, seriously), and this was his Big Triumphant Return To Earth after all the chaos and the Next Big Story to settle him back into the prominent position he'd mostly been removed from as "Earth's Greatest" Hero" and a chance to explore an exciting new status quo aaaaaaaaaaaaaand hegoesforawalk.

I don't know if he knew about the timing when he pitched and wrote the story. I suppose it's possible he didn't know how close together "New Krypton" and his story were gonna be. But it felt like an underwhelming follow-up and certainly did not help.

The pitch wasn't actually bad. There's a few times I can see the basic concept working. Remember "King of the World", where Dominus was influencing his mind and he took all the nuclear weapons and set himself up as (Story Title)? And then afterwards, when the whole world was afraid of him and didn't trust him because of his massive overreach, and he had to "humble" himself and very gradually earn everyone's trust back for several months? That would've been a good time to do a story like "Grounded". Literally walking from one side of the country to the other, doing Good Deeds great and small, winning the hearts of people back one at a time through his sheer humility and good-nature until everyone loved him again... that would've been pretty cool, actually, with the right execution.

The "pitch" itself was fine, and could have worked at several points if executed well. But the story itself wasn't executed very well. And the ending fell apart. The basic pitch, though, the very basic pitch wasn't bad, and could've worked at a number of key points. But not like that, and not when they attempted it.

[Galactus]

From what little I read of it (and about it) it seemed like an attempt to the Green Lantern/Green Arrow journey across America to learn about social and political issues but with Superman.

Sounds interesting Superman really getting into the lives of the people who he saves but from what I read I just wasn't feeling it.

As for your man Jurgens outside of his prolific Superman work I actually likes his Sensational Spider-Man. To find out later that he himself didn't care for his own run was kinda disappointing.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Not legal on the station though and very contrary to the Prime Directive (although the barely mentioned that on DS9). A couple of seasons earlier he went ballistic when Worf was helping his brother to commit ritual suicide. It shows how much Sisko changed during the series.

That was a really, REALLY dumb episode.

The solution was easy, but the episode would have been over in 2 minutes: Worf takes Kurn on a one-way shuttle ride into Klingon space, outside Federation and Bajoran jurisdiction.

"Where's Kurn, Worf?"
"I took my brother to a farm upstate. He will be happy there."

[Galactus]

Was Worf even welcome in Klingon space at the time? Besides I think it's made clear Worf didn't really want to kill his brother and was probably relieved that Dax stopped him.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Was Worf even welcome in Klingon space at the time? Besides I think it's made clear Worf didn't really want to kill his brother and was probably relieved that Dax stopped him.

But she didn't STOP him, he went through with it. He says he wouldn't be able to do it again. But he did it the first time.

And Defiant has a cloaking device. He coulda lied to Sisko, or just chartered a runabout to anywhere else outside UFP territory. Hell, do it in the Gamma Quadrant.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but that episode really felt manufactured and forced to me when I rewatched it this year. Great acting, great seeing Jadzia and Worf (and Sisko chewing out Worf), but it was definitely forced for it to work.

[Leo656]

From what little I read of it (and about it) it seemed like an attempt to the Green Lantern/Green Arrow journey across America to learn about social and political issues but with Superman.

Sounds interesting Superman really getting into the lives of the people who he saves but from what I read I just wasn't feeling it.

As for your man Jurgens outside of his prolific Superman work I actually likes his Sensational Spider-Man. To find out later that he himself didn't care for his own run was kinda disappointing.

Yeah, editorial was stifling creativity pretty hard during Jurgens's short run. At least he was the guy to make a hard push to finally end the Clone Saga, arguing fans were sick of reading it and writers were sick of writing it, and they eventually followed through, even if he didn't stick around for the resolution.

I always hate when he takes a "break" from Superman, because it just feels like a waste of time. Nobody can touch the guy, and whether it's five months or five years, he's gonna come back, so everything in-between just feels like spinning wheels until he inevitably gets the reigns back. You don't bench Michael Jordan, dammit!

[Galactus]

But she didn't STOP him, he went through with it. He says he wouldn't be able to do it again. But he did it the first time.

And Defiant has a cloaking device. He coulda lied to Sisko, or just chartered a runabout to anywhere else outside UFP territory. Hell, do it in the Gamma Quadrant.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but that episode really felt manufactured and forced to me when I rewatched it this year. Great acting, great seeing Jadzia and Worf (and Sisko chewing out Worf), but it was definitely forced for it to work.

She contacted Doctor Bashir who revived him. Do you really think that Sisko would buy whatever excuse Worf would give him for needing to take his brother somewhere in a runabout or the Defiant?

Besides it was made clear killing is not something Worf was cool with. He had his arm twisted once and wasn't going to let it happen again. Next Gen spelled it out at the end of Redemption when he not only spared Duras' son but also prevented Kurn from killing him. It was spelled out again in Ethics when he was convinced not to commit ritual suicide himself and instead chose to take a risky operation to regain his mobility. He just isn't like other Klingons and it's just not his way.

Yeah, editorial was stifling creativity pretty hard during Jurgens's short run. At least he was the guy to make a hard push to finally end the Clone Saga, arguing fans were sick of reading it and writers were sick of writing it, and they eventually followed through, even if he didn't stick around for the resolution.

I always hate when he takes a "break" from Superman, because it just feels like a waste of time. Nobody can touch the guy, and whether it's five months or five years, he's gonna come back, so everything in-between just feels like spinning wheels until he inevitably gets the reigns back. You don't bench Michael Jordan, dammit!

I think the dip in sales and new management at Marvel going who is this blonde guy swinging around as Spider-Man we've got a cartoon with Peter Parker on the air. They were looking to reverse their decision to make Ben the new Spider-Man almost immediately after it happened, it was only a few issues in Peter returned in a support role during the mystery of the Spider-Man skeleton which was clear sign that the status quo would return. Seems a shame he didn't stick around to see Peter come back properly but I actually thought the work he did with Ben was pretty good even if he doesn't

[Leo656]

I don't know if Jurgens really dislikes it, but I know he feels like he wasn't allowed to really do his best stuff and felt a little bait-and-switched. He really wanted to write Peter Parker as the main character and I know he was frustrated he wasn't allowed to do that, therefore, even giving it his best shot his heart wasn't really in it.

[Andrew NDB]

Interesting. If the Hawley one happens, it won't be Kirk or Picard but connects to real Star Trek in a big way.

https://www.slashfilm.com/noah-hawleys-star-trek-update/

That probably means it will never happen.

[Andrew NDB]

Kalinda Vazquez has been set to write a new “Star Trek” movie for Paramount Pictures and J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot.

Vazquez, who was named after a character from the original 1960s series, wrote a recent Michelle Yeoh-centric episode of “Star Trek: Discovery” and has served as a consulting producer on the most recent season.

Oh, so it's a hack.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/vazquez-set-to-pen-new-star-trek-film/

[NinjaPug]

Paramount dated a new Trek movie for June 2023. Only thing known about it is that JJ is still producing for some reason.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-next-star-trek-movie-has-a-stardate-in-2023-1846652498/amp

[ZariusTwo]

Paramount dated a new Trek movie for June 2023. Only thing known about it is that JJ is still producing for some reason.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-next-star-trek-movie-has-a-stardate-in-2023-1846652498/amp

This movie is also not the one being presently written by Kalinda Vanquez and is seperate.

[TigerClaw]

This movie is also not the one being presently written by Kalinda Vanquez and is seperate.
With CBS and Paramount back together. They can do the movies based on the shows and use the same cast. Its the reason why we had the movies from the Kelvin timeline, Because Paramount couldn't use any of the characters from the CBS shows because back then the IPs was split, CBS with the TV rights and Paramount with the movie rights.

Now that Viacom and CBS are back together. They can do Star Trek movies with any of the characters from the TV shows if they want.

[NinjaPug]

The movie has a director - Matt Shakman, who did the WandaVision series.

Originally the article stated it would be with the Kelvin crew but that part has since been deleted.

https://deadline.com/2021/07/star-trek-film-director-wandavision-matt-shakman-1234792438/

[CyberCubed]

I feel like we hear about a new director doing a new Star Trek movie every 6 months and then that idea is abandoned and then they do the same thing with another director. Isn't this like the 4th or 5th time we heard about a director doing a Star Trek movie and nothing comes of it?

[ranger_scout]

The movie has a director - Matt Shakman, who did the WandaVision series.

Originally the article stated it would be with the Kelvin crew but that part has since been deleted.

https://deadline.com/2021/07/star-trek-film-director-wandavision-matt-shakman-1234792438/

We've heard this before. I wonder if it will ever truly see the light of day.

[Andrew NDB]

They honestly don't have any business doing a Star Trek movie right now. It isn't like with the TOS cast where the TOS movies sprung from that show and were greatly looked forward to and became a thing or where the TNG movies slid off TV into movie screens. Because what are they going to give us, since they're ruling out Kelvin (as would be wise to)? Some random Star Trek event on the timeline? A big TNG/DS9/VOY movie would work but we all know that's just not going to happen. So what? Some kind of spinoff of STD or STP? How horrible that would be.

[IMJ]

They honestly don't have any business doing a Star Trek movie right now. It isn't like with the TOS cast where the TOS movies sprung from that show and were greatly looked forward to and became a thing or where the TNG movies slid off TV into movie screens. Because what are they going to give us, since they're ruling out Kelvin (as would be wise to)? Some random Star Trek event on the timeline? A big TNG/DS9/VOY movie would work but we all know that's just not going to happen. So what? Some kind of spinoff of STD or STP? How horrible that would be.

Agreed. Star Trek is a mess right now. An I.P. that lost it's identity to identity politics and CW-style drama writing. It's a "relevancy show from the perspective of an echo-chamber" rather than a show first that is punctuated with relevancy and morality plays.

[CyberCubed]

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/star-trek-chris-pine-zachary-quinto-zoe-saldana-1235021307/

Star Trek 4 to begin filming for a 2023 release. Chris Pine and the 2009 cast are all back besides Chekov. I wonder if they'll recast or just ignore him.

[Galactus]

Agreed. Star Trek is a mess right now. An I.P. that lost it's identity to identity politics and CW-style drama writing. It's a "relevancy show from the perspective of an echo-chamber" rather than a show first that is punctuated with relevancy and morality plays.

That's what it always was.

[Sumac]

That's what it always was.
It always was a creatively boring pseudo-sci-fi nothingburger, pandering to a small echo chamber?
Boy, I wonder how it has become so popular in this case?
Or maybe, someone just projects their impaired beliefs again...

[Andrew NDB]

Terrible news. There's nothing left to milk with Kelvin Trek unless they want to make it a "fixing the timeline" movie with one last adventure.

[Galactus]

It was always was a creatively boring pseudo-sci-fi nothingburger, pandering to a small echo chamber?
Boy, I wonder how it has become so popular in this case?
Or maybe, someone just projects their impaired beliefs again...

That's you're interpretation of what I said...which is wrong.

And no, I didn't project my personal beliefs onto the Star Trek franchise. Gene Roddenberry was very open about the show being a vehicle to comment on social and political issues and promoting progressive politics. Now Roddenberry has never been the be all and end all of the franchise but while other writers have differed in their approach their end goal was always the same. Now you don't have to be a progressive yourself to enjoy Star Trek, after all it's a work of fiction but no one should deceive that the franchise is anything but what it is.

[Andrew NDB]

And no, I didn't project my personal beliefs onto the Star Trek franchise. Gene Roddenberry was very open about the show being a vehicle to comment on social and political issues and promoting progressive politics. Now Roddenberry has never been the be all and end all of the franchise but while other writers have differed in their approach their end goal was always the same. Now you don't have to be a progressive yourself to enjoy Star Trek, after all it's a work of fiction but no one should deceive that the franchise is anything but what it is.

"Star Trek was always a left-leaning property, but it was never inaccessible to Conservatives on the Right. The Next Generation was the first in the franchise’s history to tackle important social topics without the heavy handedness of political bias. Rather, it presented common sense answers to difficult questions in an era when nobody thought Wokeness would ever become a thing.

Even though the Star Trek franchise has been hijacked and irredeemably corrupted by The Next Generation’s principal actors (and Paramount writ large), the show itself is a breath of fresh air that feels timelessly enjoyable. What a shame that the modern Left have decided to ignore every single moral lesson it tried so hard to talk about."

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/01/19/10-least-woke-tv-shows-to-detox-the-mind/?fbclid=IwAR2a9mfjA_5p0QdYMArqqvLMF5VkdN0hNda9Wl6n EWe7S5t8RHnth-xYLAQ

[IMJ]

That's you're interpretation of what I said...which is wrong.

And no, I didn't project my personal beliefs onto the Star Trek franchise. Gene Roddenberry was very open about the show being a vehicle to comment on social and political issues and promoting progressive politics. Now Roddenberry has never been the be all and end all of the franchise but while other writers have differed in their approach their end goal was always the same. Now you don't have to be a progressive yourself to enjoy Star Trek, after all it's a work of fiction but no one should deceive that the franchise is anything but what it is.

I don't think that was his interpretation. I think that's basically the only recourse you'd leave most reasonable people to think given your response.

And your thing about "progressive Star Trek"? Yeah. That is always what Star Trek was, but Discovery is beyond "progressive". It's purely tailored for the "cult of cry".

Roddenberry's "progressive" meant a future accepting of everyone. Discovery's "progressive" is woke $#!( - a far cry from a future accepting of everyone. Woke $#!( isn't "progressive". It's just an angry assault from a generation of people who got trophies for failing and blame rrrrraasssss-cism when they fail in real life and don't get the reward.

[Galactus]

"Star Trek was always a left-leaning property, but it was never inaccessible to Conservatives on the Right. The Next Generation was the first in the franchise’s history to tackle important social topics without the heavy handedness of political bias. Rather, it presented common sense answers to difficult questions in an era when nobody thought Wokeness would ever become a thing.

Even though the Star Trek franchise has been hijacked and irredeemably corrupted by The Next Generation’s principal actors (and Paramount writ large), the show itself is a breath of fresh air that feels timelessly enjoyable. What a shame that the modern Left have decided to ignore every single moral lesson it tried so hard to talk about."

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/01/19/10-least-woke-tv-shows-to-detox-the-mind/?fbclid=IwAR2a9mfjA_5p0QdYMArqqvLMF5VkdN0hNda9Wl6n EWe7S5t8RHnth-xYLAQ

You could have written you're own rebuttal rather than quote a site which is essentially an alt right front that regularly report rumours that any idiot could see is untrue to stir up alt right types against media and creators they don't like.

What they said here is clearly wrong. There's always been a certain amount of Conservatives who have long thought of Star Trek as their own. It's somewhat understandable as it certainly looks militaristic particularly the movies. I've certainly read some interesting Conservative interpretation of episodes...but from interviews we know they are wrong.

There's also been people of more right leaning persuasion that picked up that Star Trek was a very left leaning show and enjoyed it anyway. That's fine as a work of fiction it doesn't have to align with your real world views. Star Trek has definitely changed over the decades but the Conservative 'movement' has changed way more that if any of the classic shows were aired for the first time today the political right would be in meltdown.

Utopia is achieved by abandoning capitalism, hard borders are seen as bad. I can only imagine how the early episodes of Next Gen were it was shows men cross dressing was normal would be recieved. All the issue episodes would be seen as preachy.

The casting of Levar Burton best known for his role in Roots would raise eyebrows. The casting of Avery Brookes as the lead with his views on race, having his character collect African art, then have the actor direct Far Beyond The Stars would have been denounced as IMJ would put it "woke ****".

I'm not a huge fan of Discovery but I find my problems with it are very different to the show's loudest detractors which seem to take issue with any kind of minority being present. Even before the show aired people were getting very angry that the lead character was a black woman and writing it off as terrible. If that's what the modern political finds alienating about the new Star Trek shows...well it doesn't paint them in a positive light.

I don't think that was his interpretation. I think that's basically the only recourse you'd leave most reasonable people to think given your response.

And your thing about "progressive Star Trek"? Yeah. That is always what Star Trek was, but Discovery is beyond "progressive". It's purely tailored for the "cult of cry".

Roddenberry's "progressive" meant a future accepting of everyone. Discovery's "progressive" is woke $#!( - a far cry from a future accepting of everyone. Woke $#!( isn't "progressive". It's just an angry assault from a generation of people who got trophies for failing and blame rrrrraasssss-cism when they fail in real life and don't get the reward.

Calm down. You don't even know what woke means. What does any of what you have to do with Star Trek anyway? Is there any version of the property new or old that advocates getting trophies for failing? You do these rants about everything whether it fits or now. Calm down.

[Sumac]

You could have written you're own rebuttal rather than quote a site which is essentially an alt right front that regularly report rumours that any idiot could see is untrue to stir up alt right types against media and creators they don't like.
"Everything I don't like or can deny without using insults, is alt-right".
Good job, kid.

There's also been people of more right leaning persuasion that picked up that Star Trek was a very left leaning show and enjoyed it anyway. That's fine as a work of fiction it doesn't have to align with your real world views. Star Trek has definitely changed over the decades but the Conservative 'movement' has changed way more that if any of the classic shows were aired for the first time today the political right would be in meltdown.
"Everyone who disagree with me are Fasicsts".
You are brining an A game, kiddo.

Utopia is achieved by abandoning capitalism, hard borders are seen as bad. I can only imagine how the early episodes of Next Gen were it was shows men cross dressing was normal would be recieved. All the issue episodes would be seen as preachy.
ST'verse had abandoned Capitalism, because, they've found improbable solution, which is ability to create anything in any quantity, if I am not mistaking. It makes a good explanation, but a lousy and lazy plot device. It certainly was not propaganda of Communism as understood by the modern Left. Or Left in general.

Calm down. You don't even know what woke means. What does any of what you have to do with Star Trek anyway? Is there any version of the property new or old that advocates getting trophies for failing? You do these rants about everything whether it fits or now. Calm down.
It is almost like his rants aimed at problems, which have become core of the modern Left movement, which had transformed it from a reasonable political force to movement of squealing authoritarian lunatics, trying to destroy or main everything they see, seeing offense at every corner and looking almost like a comical parody of fascists, they like to invoke so often.

[Galactus]

"Everything I don't like or can deny without using insults, is alt-right".
Good job, kid.

That's the whole point of the site; it's nerd culture stuff reported from a very right wing perspective. However they do go beyond just commentary they attack specific creators and their tactics are straight out of the alt-right playbook. One well known example is they reported about a tweet by comic writer Alyssa Wong saying some very bad things about Stan Lee after he died which of course caused a lot of angry people to go bully her online. Problem was this tweet was completely fake. There is little doubt in my mind they knew it was fake but even if they didn't the moment that people started telling them it was photoshopped and someone was being harassed for no reason they should have issued a retraction and an apology but they didn't they wanted the harassment to continue. They are genuinely bad people.

"Everyone who disagree with me are Fasicsts".
You are brining an A game, kiddo.

What does this have to do with what I wrote? We know from interviews with writers, producers and actors the intention behind almost every Star Trek show. So Conservatives who interpret them as pro-Conservative allegories are wrong. I didn't call them fascists...just incorrect. I don't take these debates too seriously but you're clearly not bringing you A game either.

ST'verse had abandoned Capitalism, because, they've found improbable solution, which is ability to create anything in any quantity, if I am not mistaking. It makes a good explanation, but a lousy and lazy plot device. It certainly was not propaganda of Communism as understood by the modern Left. Or Left in general.

The idea is that if we could end scarcity by some method then we should work world with no need for money were everyone would be equal. You don't have to agree that's a good idea to enjoy Star Trek after all it's science fiction but that's still the message.

I should also point out that while we don't have replicators we do have in the real world the ability to adequately feed, clothe and provide healthcare to every person on the planet, We don't do that out of a sense that capital comes first.

It is almost like his rants aimed at problems, which have become core of the modern Left movement, which had transformed it from a reasonable political force to movement of squealing authoritarian lunatics, trying to destroy or main everything they see, seeing offense at every corner and looking almost like a comical parody of fascists, they like to invoke so often.

His rants are often not relevant to the subject being discussed. What the hell does Star Trek having a diverse cast have do with participation trophies? Unless he's suggesting that people of colour don't deserve roles in these shows in which case their casting is the participation trophy...I certainly hope that's not what means because that would be pretty damned bigoted.

[Sumac]

That's the whole point of the site; it's nerd culture stuff reported from a very right wing perspective. However they do go beyond just commentary they attack specific creators and their tactics are straight out of the alt-right playbook. One well known example is they reported about a tweet by comic writer Alyssa Wong saying some very bad things about Stan Lee after he died which of course caused a lot of angry people to go bully her online. Problem was this tweet was completely fake. There is little doubt in my mind they knew it was fake but even if they didn't the moment that people started telling them it was photoshopped and someone was being harassed for no reason they should have issued a retraction and an apology but they didn't they wanted the harassment to continue. They are genuinely bad people.
And having right wing site is bad, even though they are crap-ton of much more influential left wing sites which harass people as well?

I am against harassment, but I am not against existence of sites that provide alternate point of view. It is healthy and normal in a free society, which you oppose.

Also, do you have any proof that all people who work on this site are "bad people"? Like all of them are just in it to harass people they don't like? Would you say the same about sites like Kotaku or Huffington Post, which is guilty of harassing people as well? Will you consider all of people working them to be "bad people" or this definition works only for those who explicitly oppose or connected to those who oppose your views?

See, kid, life is not a comic book or a fairy tale. This is something that people like you can't get. For whatever reason, be it fear or lack of education or ability to process complex systems, you've stuck with the notion, that world is strictly divided between good and bad people.

But that's not how it works. People are rarely strictly good or bad. Much less they are motivated by doing good or evil out of explicit desire to do good or evil. People motivated by personal motives, be it desire for money, glory, revenge e.t.c.

And just before you discount my opinion, because, I don't lap left cool-aid, let me remind you that I was born in the totalitarian country, where many people had supported inhuman system for decades. Some of those people were my relatives or people who I know one way or the other. Even though they've hated that system they had no choice, but to support it, to provide for their family or just to stay on the good side of the party.

The same thing happens now, when we have another tyrant in power. A lot of people support him out of fear, not for themselves, but for their families. And I understand them. Should I consider them monsters just, because, we have opposing views or, because, they value their families and lives more than anything else?

What does this have to do with what I wrote? We know from interviews with writers, producers and actors the intention behind almost every Star Trek show. So Conservatives who interpret them as pro-Conservative allegories are wrong. I didn't call them fascists...just incorrect. I don't take these debates too seriously but you're clearly not bringing you A game either.
You specifically mentioned that "conservative movement had changed". In your circles it usually means "Republicans went all Fascists and there's barely anything stopping them from creating Gestapo and Death Squads to kill all Black and Gays on the streets".
Hence my reaction.

The idea is that if we could end scarcity by some method then we should work world with no need for money were everyone would be equal. You don't have to agree that's a good idea to enjoy Star Trek after all it's science fiction but that's still the message.
It is a good message, which is impossible to implement in real life, due to multiple reasons.

I should also point out that while we don't have replicators we do have in the real world the ability to adequately feed, clothe and provide healthcare to every person on the planet, We don't do that out of a sense that capital comes first.
Ah, yes, like all those un-capitalist socialist countries, which put humans first and provided them with food and medicine they needed did!
Everyone were well fed and had their own apartments and there were never any scarcity, class division, hungers and the like.

Lay off your Mao, kid.

There are too many reasons why your scenario won't work and capital is like not even in a top 10 reasons for that. If anything capital was a thing that enabled Western society to feed and give comforts to people, they previously didn't have.

His rants are often not relevant to the subject being discussed. What the hell does Star Trek having a diverse cast have do with participation trophies? Unless he's suggesting that people of colour don't deserve roles in these shows in which case their casting is the participation trophy...I certainly hope that's not what means because that would be pretty damned bigoted.
Once again you drinking too much cool-aid.
How about the case, that people should receive something for actually accomplishing something or being talented at something, not just being there and being of certain sex, skin color or sexual orientation?

[IMJ]

Calm down. You don't even know what woke means. What does any of what you have to do with Star Trek anyway? Is there any version of the property new or old that advocates getting trophies for failing? You do these rants about everything whether it fits or now. Calm down.

:lol:
That's nonsense. Complete and utter garbage interpretation. You should try addressing what I said on it's own merits. What I wrote specifically addresses much of the state of Star Trek nowadays as represented by Discovery and Picard.

If I call this stuff out frequently here it's because the examples are replete and poignant. I have no need to pencil whip them - they are all around us and I think an easy argument could be made that you are in disregard of the application of "woke" and it's manifested meaning-in-action as opposed to what the left wants to pretend it means.

And look bud, you might be tired of my "rants", which on it's own merits is fine that you'd feel to call me on coming to this routinely. But I don't care. My "rants" are always on point and exemplified. Meanwhile you fling words, gaslight and add-in meaning - which by the way are all three accusations that I could provide direct example of in your posting and I could do it without twisting your words or meaning at all. You should try to acknowledge what that means internally if you have the fortitude for it, bare minimum.

Telling me to calm down shows weakness on your part. Your interpretation of my typical poignancy must be trapping for you if your go-to is that I'm in some overactive state. That speaks to you and your life views, not mine.

[CyberCubed]

Remember, everyone, Gul Dukat treated the Bajoran's as if they were his own children. He did nothing wrong.

[IMJ]

Remember, everyone, Gul Dukat treated the Bajoran's as if they were his own children. He did nothing wrong.

:teek:

:o

:teek:

[Galactus]

And having right wing site is bad, even though they are crap-ton of much more influential left wing sites which harass people as well?

I am against harassment, but I am not against existence of sites that provide alternate point of view. It is healthy and normal in a free society, which you oppose.

Also, do you have any proof that all people who work on this site are "bad people"? Like all of them are just in it to harass people they don't like? Would you say the same about sites like Kotaku or Huffington Post, which is guilty of harassing people as well? Will you consider all of people working them to be "bad people" or this definition works only for those who explicitly oppose or connected to those who oppose your views?

See, kid, life is not a comic book or a fairy tale. This is something that people like you can't get. For whatever reason, be it fear or lack of education or ability to process complex systems, you've stuck with the notion, that world is strictly divided between good and bad people.

...
...

I cropped the quote so it doesn't take too much space.

The major problem with your opening point is saying that a right wing website is presenting an "alternative point of view". Most news outlets in the western world lean right wing. In the US Fox News is the biggest cable news network and it's no coincidence that it's the best funded by significant margin. Where I live (the UK) almost all the major newspapers are rabidly right wing and like Fox News are very well funded in a way that the more liberal or non aligned publications are not. Even down to the right wing youtube commentators like Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin and the like they all get major funding by the Koch brothers. The strange thing is that despite being the some of the best best funded and most influential news and opinion outlets in the world they position themselves as outsiders and anti-mainstream. It's a good grift that works very well but what are they really in opposition to? There is no ideological equivalent of Fox News in the US. Nor is there an equivalent of The Sun or The Daily Mail in the UK. Mainstream liberal news outlets rarely get as relentlessly partisan like right wing media does. Even an organisation like the BBC which is supposed to be impartial the overton window (as Americans say) leans quite far to the right. They are okay interviewing far right figures but never put on someone from the far left.

As for Boundingintocomics specifically; you may think their viewpoint is a necessary one but that shouldn't justify encouraging people to attack someone based on a lie. I assume you're not okay with news outlets deliberately reporting lies. This website (and similar ones) lie a lot, sometimes for clicks but other times to push their agenda, in this case their agenda was they didn't want an Asian woman working for Marvel. People do bad things sure but when they make a habit of I tend to think they are bad people.

You specifically mentioned that "conservative movement had changed". In your circles it usually means "Republicans went all Fascists and there's barely anything stopping them from creating Gestapo and Death Squads to kill all Black and Gays on the streets".
Hence my reaction.

In my estimation people on the far right tended to never like Star Trek. It is true though that in general cultural attitudes in the political right have shifted quite a bit that even the ones that haven't gone completely to the far right now have problems with things they were okay with at the time of the classic Star Trek shows.

It is a good message, which is impossible to implement in real life, due to multiple reasons.

Of course because it's a work of fiction. Are you under the impression I'm trying to sell Star Trek as a series of documentaries? But works of fiction often carry moral lessons and that's something Star Trek has unashamedly done since its inception.


Ah, yes, like all those un-capitalist socialist countries, which put humans first and provided them with food and medicine they needed did!
Everyone were well fed and had their own apartments and there were never any scarcity, class division, hungers and the like.

Socialist and even communist countries still use a monetary system. That's were the analogy with Star Trek has never worked. Still even within our current real world systems we do genuinely have the capacity to feed and house everyone. Much as I'm not fond of New Labour one of the things I give them credit for is genuinely reducing the level of homelessness in the UK to the point it could be said they'd almost ended homelessness. Nowadays homelessness is at record levels and politicians on both sides now argue that while bad this is a problem that will always be with us which is ridiculous.

How about the case, that people should receive something for actually accomplishing something or being talented at something, not just being there and being of certain sex, skin color or sexual orientation?

Are you suggesting the non Straight white male actors currently on Star Trek didn't get those roles because they talented and accomplished in their fields?

[Leo656]

Well, you're right that most right-leaning people were never much into Star Trek. Not because it was "too liberal", but because it's Nerd Sh*t. If you're right-wing you're historically not supposed to be into Nerd Sh*t.

I grew up in a moderately Red section of an historically Blue state. What you tend to notice about right-wingers, by and large, is that they're rather pragmatic and as such have little patience for fantasy or flights of fancy. You're supposed to apply yourself and take interest in things that are "real" over things which are not. Ergo, you're supposed to be into sports, "working a real job", hanging out at bars and chasing women, and so on, because those things have a "practical" use (making money, establishing connections, getting laid, etc.). Conversely, things like comic books, video games, and science fiction have always been looked down upon in more conservative circles, a least for the most part. You'd hear it all the time growing up from relatives, friends' parents, teachers and guidance counselors, if they were more right-leaning - "Comic books? Star Trek? How is any of THAT gonna help you in life? That's not real, it's a waste of time." And if you tried to explain that you simply didn't care for football, for example, they'd immediately reply "At least football is REAL." It's only very, very recently that Nerd Sh*t has become an "acceptable" form of entertainment for more conservative types, but even now you'll still see some heavy pushback sometimes.

You see this sort of pragmatism trickle into many areas of how Conservatives live their life in general, for example how fiercely they describe most liberal values as "make-believe" or "fairy-tale nonsense". It comes back to the old "If it's not tangible or realistic then it simply has no value" way of thinking that most of them subscribe to on some level.

Which admittedly does not explain why so many Conservatives still cling so fiercely to religion. Since God definitely isn't real. But, they THINK he is, so I guess under their goofy rules it's stillacceptable.t

[Andrew NDB]

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/star-trek-chris-pine-zachary-quinto-zoe-saldana-1235021307/

Star Trek 4 to begin filming for a 2023 release. Chris Pine and the 2009 cast are all back besides Chekov. I wonder if they'll recast or just ignore him.

So the cast don't know anything about another film, there's no script, no budget and their announcement was just a show they put on for investors:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/star-trek-sequel-reveal-surprised-its-own-stars-1235097557/?fbclid=IwAR2JRkRguF-QfEBsaQ1hf9IvK5aoU74A7I33kFL8t2eIvB2D81ioFUHZZLY

[IMJ]

Which admittedly does not explain why so many Conservatives still cling so fiercely to religion. Since God definitely isn't real. But, they THINK he is, so I guess under their goofy rules it's stillacceptable.t

I think people who score highly on religiosity scales tend to find some kind of comfort for an overwhelming feeling of existential dread. It's like an inversion of the far left who find comfort in excusing life failure through inventing an assailant and calling them an "ism" or a "nazi".

Both ends of the spectrum are replete with compensating for fear by inventing an "other".

;)

Ya like that?

[Andrew NDB]

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/paramount-brian-robbins-top-gun-maverick-box-office-star-trek-1235287048/

Where do things stand with the next “Star Trek” sequel, and why did you decide to bring back Chris Pine?

We’re deep into it with J.J. Abrams, and it feels like we’re getting close to the starting line and excited about where we’re going creatively. I’m a research nerd, and what the data tells me is that the audience wants that cast in this movie.

So basically nothing at all has changed at the top with Paramount vs. a few years ago or even 2009 and all of those possibly neat things that have been floating around in the past 2-3 years like the Noah Hawley movie or the Tarantino script aren't happening. More JJ Trek movies helps what move forward, exactly?

[Andrew NDB]

Pulled from the schedule. Good.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/paramount-pulls-star-trek-4-from-schedule/

[Andrew NDB]

Chris Pine says Star Trek 4 has been cursed since Beyond didn't make a billion.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a43141365/chris-pine-star-trek-franchise-cursed/

Good. We don't need this.

[IMJ]

Chris Pine says Star Trek 4 has been cursed since Beyond didn't make a billion.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a43141365/chris-pine-star-trek-franchise-cursed/

Good. We don't need this.

He's right and it's ridiculous. And Beyond was a terrific movie too..... No Star Trek movie, even adjusted for inflation, has ever come remotely close to a billion dollar cultural-movement. And Star Trek has a die-hard fanbase and even so this has never happened.

[neatoman]

Chris Pine says Star Trek 4 has been cursed since Beyond didn't make a billion.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a43141365/chris-pine-star-trek-franchise-cursed/

Good. We don't need this.

Of course Beyond caused a curse, it's the thirteenth Star Trek movie.

[newfan]

Ah yes I saw a tweet about this 4th never happening movie, something about no director but Abrahmas saying it will be worth the wait.. like...7 more years?
I stopped taking updates seriously a while back.

I prefered Beyond out of all 3 new movies, also Kirk felt a little more like Kirk in parts.

[member_removed]

I prefered Beyond out of all 3 new movies, also Kirk felt a little more like Kirk in parts.

That's like saying being punched in the nuts once is better than being punched in the nuts twice.

There is reason Trek movies worked in the 80's.

Wrath of Khan made $87M off a budget of $12M (Paramount had it easy in the 80s, Trek and Friday the 13th, small budget good reliable return.

Trek on the big screen has limited appeal, even with a die hard fan base.

If you can't make a Trek movie for $50M don't bother, stick with streaming on TV.

[Andrew NDB]

Who knows. Maybe there is another Beastie Boys song they can throw out there.

:roll:

[IMJ]

That's like saying being punched in the nuts once is better than being punched in the nuts twice.

There is reason Trek movies worked in the 80's.

Wrath of Khan made $87M off a budget of $12M (Paramount had it easy in the 80s, Trek and Friday the 13th, small budget good reliable return.

Trek on the big screen has limited appeal, even with a die hard fan base.

If you can't make a Trek movie for $50M don't bother, stick with streaming on TV.

Exactly. As much as I love Trek, there is literally no argument to be made that it's even remotely a per-film billion dollar franchise.

[Andrew NDB]

They're still threatening to make a 4th Kelvin movie, now calling it "the final" one.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/star-trek-4-gets-new-writer-for-final-film/

[ranger_scout]

They're still threatening to make a 4th Kelvin movie, now calling it "the final" one.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/star-trek-4-gets-new-writer-for-final-film/

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard about a development of a fourth film.

[CyberCubed]

At this point the modern cast is almost as "old" as the original cast when they started making movies.

[Andrew NDB]

Its still sputtering about but not expected to happen.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/f4-director-talks-his-star-trek-4-exit/

[IMJ]

It's too far gone.
It has nothing to do with the cast getting "old". It's just too far gone.

Star Trek Beyond was a very cliche story (more internal evil from Starfleet) but it was a solid movie and they weren't doing anything in that franchise with a continued narrative anyway.

Just let it die and move on.

Start making Trek on T.V. again, move it to beyond the TNG-era and yes, "make the ships fast, the tech stronger, etc". Do all the cliche BS and get back to Trek.

[ZariusTwo]

Fourth movie still in development, but another movie is also being made with all new characters and from the director of Andor

https://deadline.com/2025/08/paramount-movies-priorities-top-gun-star-trek-1236480202/

[member_removed]

Fourth movie still in development, but another movie is also being made with all new characters and from the director of Andor

https://deadline.com/2025/08/paramount-movies-priorities-top-gun-star-trek-1236480202/

Meh!

I still don't believe we'll ever see Kelvin 4.

It would be nice to see something for the 60th anniversary next year. But not with any of the people listed in the article attached to it.

[IMJ]

I don't think so either.

They really need to decide if they are going into these movies in some kind of true trilogy or overarching story, or if they are just going to be ongoing anthology, 'single adventure' flicks.

I'd love an "Enterprise" revival and a continuation of "Picard season3" with the new Enterprise.

[Andrew NDB]

Finally dead (probably?), thank goodness.

https://blog.trekcore.com/2025/11/paramount-has-moved-on-from-a-star-trek-kelvin-timeline-sequel-film-says-new-variety-report/?fbclid=IwY2xjawN3PjFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETF0Q0d4 bWlkRHR4UDJxV0dPAR7P3g2VZyVs5fMjGUWc8s8xr4ZRMKilY3 2_PpAZ1F6RwRN33mYVNG5hCy4Wag_aem_SYKYe8kwqq-DmkC5HVM-og

[CyberCubed]

This movie is never happening. The reboot cast is done.

[ranger_scout]

Finally dead (probably?), thank goodness.

https://blog.trekcore.com/2025/11/paramount-has-moved-on-from-a-star-trek-kelvin-timeline-sequel-film-says-new-variety-report/?fbclid=IwY2xjawN3PjFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETF0Q0d4 bWlkRHR4UDJxV0dPAR7P3g2VZyVs5fMjGUWc8s8xr4ZRMKilY3 2_PpAZ1F6RwRN33mYVNG5hCy4Wag_aem_SYKYe8kwqq-DmkC5HVM-og

It's official.

https://deadline.com/2025/11/star-trek-movie-jonathan-goldstein-john-francis-daley-1236616716/

Now Chris Pine can focus on returning for The Princess Diaries 3.

[Andrew NDB]

Probably worth its own thread. In any case yeah, this marks a DIRECT departure from Kurtzman and even Abrams. And bodes very well for Kurtzman's contract not getting renewed.

Though I'm not sure getting movie crazy first before doing quality TV shows is the right order of business. But we'll see.