View Single Post
Old January 28 2013, 10:08 PM   #150
CorporalClegg's Avatar
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Why would they do that if Into Darkness is a success? The natural and sensible thing then is to go ahead with the third movie.

Maybe Abrams will get Brad Bird to direct it?

OTOH, there is simply no clear path to big success with a Trek TV series in the current industry.
I didn't mean a series instead of a third film. It's a foregone conclusion that, unless STID is a total flop, which it won't be, there will be a third film.

However, the future beyond that isn't nearly as clear now. Even since ST09 was first announced, there has been scuttlebutt that it was intended to be a trilogy. That makes sense. Hollywood loves trilogies. And I think the news puts it more in the "likely" column.

Sure, Bad Robot could finish the third film and say "full steam ahead!" For all we know, Disney only intends this to be a one film gig and plan to pass EpiVIII off to Whedon, Affleck, Verbinski, etc.

On the other hand, Paramount might find themselves facing, at best, a recasting and staffing or, at worst, another reboot and may feel that Star Trek simply lacks the ubiquitous slate comics have that so easy allow for multiple restarts.

However, for awhile now the rumor-mill has been churning out Trek series talk. It seems like Paramount has had its hand on the red phone to CBS for awhile now, but hasn't had reason to start dialing--even if STID is success.

So instead of risking things on the unknown future of the film franchise, the CBS/Paramount PTB could decide that, between the second and third films, they start putting the pieces in place for a series to hit the ground after the third film. That way they can keep the momentum going while they decided what to do about the fourth.

It has the added bonus of allowing for Abrams to put his stamp on it (and perhaps supply a couple of his TV minions) while requiring very little of him physically. Then they'd just bring in MacFarlane, JMS, or whatever name is flavorful that week.

Franklin wrote: View Post
I agree with what you say about the much higher quality of the production values of many TV series in recent years, but for what it's worth, I've honestly gotten to the point where I have little or no interest in a new Trek TV series, any more. At least not just any Trek TV series. A very high quality, well-funded, and well-cast attempt to bring Kirk et al back to TV might cause my eyebrow to rise.
See, I believe Trek simply works best on television. My biggest problem with film Trek is it does seem limited to one type of film. Since TWOK, there's really been one template that all films have followed, save one. Each film has gone outside the various lines, sure, but only slightly. And as the years have passed, that template seems to have become more ridged and strict. In fact, I don't know if TVH gets made today.

Don't get me wrong, I love the template. As long as they keep making them, I continue to go see them, and as long as they're of good, I'll enjoy them. However, a little variety would be nice.

This is especially true when you consider the stories Trek seems to be best at--the classics. Corbominte, City, Inner Light, Vistor, etc. all work so much better on television, and I just don't see a story of those various natures to ever be made into blockbuster films.
If you can read this signature, you're dying.
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote