RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,218
Posts: 5,437,894
Members: 24,955
Currently online: 455
Newest member: r.ballman

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 29 2013, 02:37 AM   #151
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
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.
Oh, I agree. Trek is a sponge suitable for almost any type of story. And, the best TV episodes wouldn't have made blockbuster films. Even TWOK is considered by some an extended TV episode. It makes me happy and sad that we had ST09. Happy because we have it. Sad because we may get only two more.

Still, I guess I just don't want 21 episodes a year where only one or two might be real gems. I also don't want anything too esoteric to Trek culture (sorry, Section 31 fans) to become "my" new Trek show. I'd like to think that somewhere out there, the next actor to play Captain Kirk just turned 21. Call me old and sentimental.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 03:46 AM   #152
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

The most interesting part of this whole story to me is that so many industry people are treating the "huge success" of Into Darkness as a foregone conclusion.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 05:10 AM   #153
Photoman15
Fleet Captain
 
Photoman15's Avatar
 
Location: The sunny shores of Trenzalore
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

It is
__________________
I refuse to put a signature here!
oh...uh...ummm
Photoman15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 05:31 AM   #154
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
However, the future beyond that isn't nearly as clear now.
Yes it is. TV as we know it is dying. The rerun/syndication market is almost gone and dvd/blu-ray are being replaced by streaming and theft. Nobody is making any money on big budget tv series. The wildly successful Walking Dead had its enormous ratings rewarded with a huge budget cut for season two; another smaller one for season three; and yet another for the forthcoming season four. Even if a Trek series were to roll out the big guns (Kirk/Spock) it wouldn't come close to Walking Dead's ratings. The aforementioned George Lucas even decided he wasn't going to make any money on live action tv Star Wars unless he could get the budget way down.

Movie attendance remains the only stability Hollywood is looking at right now.



My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
The most interesting part of this whole story to me is that so many industry people are treating the "huge success" of Into Darkness as a foregone conclusion.
We can safely assume Kennedy and Lucas have seen it.



.
__________________
"What went wrong!? All my sockpuppets loved this movie!" - Kevin Smith
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 11:48 AM   #155
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

Franklin wrote: View Post
I'd like to think that somewhere out there, the next actor to play Captain Kirk just turned 21. Call me old and sentimental.
Sounds like a perfect set-up for a Smallville Trek/Starfleet Academy series to me!
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 12:50 PM   #156
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Franklin wrote: View Post
I'd like to think that somewhere out there, the next actor to play Captain Kirk just turned 21. Call me old and sentimental.
Sounds like a perfect set-up for a Smallville Trek/Starfleet Academy series to me!
If he's 21 now, the actor will be nearly 30 by the time he's cast to play the role.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 07:20 PM   #157
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

thumbtack wrote: View Post
My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
The most interesting part of this whole story to me is that so many industry people are treating the "huge success" of Into Darkness as a foregone conclusion.
We can safely assume Kennedy and Lucas have seen it.



.
One would assume.

With the number of contract workers who move from studio to studio and project to project, not to mention executives, etc who know about these movies in detail it's pretty astonishing that there aren't more public leaks that there are.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 07:51 PM   #158
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

Photoman15 wrote: View Post
It is
Iron Man 3 comes out on May 3rd and has enough time to not compete with Trek which opens May 17th.

Other than Iron Man I don't see any other films in the same type of genre that compete with Trek in May. Man of Steel and World War Z in mid-June are the next competitors against Trek.

May 2013 movie releases

June releases
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29 2013, 09:43 PM   #159
bryce
Commodore
 
bryce's Avatar
 
Location: bryce
View bryce's Twitter Profile Send a message via Yahoo to bryce
Re: jj abrams not in 3rd star trek movie

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
The Mirrorball Man wrote: View Post
In order to be creative, you have to break things, to kill your darlings, to betray what has come before. Loyalty is the last thing I want in a director (or any artist).
I'm inclined to agree. Treating STAR TREK (or anything) with too much reverence sounds like a recipe for creative stagnation. You want to have fun with the toys, not turn them into sacred cows.

I personally think that it takes a combination of respect for the past and what things worked - and what *made* the original so beloved and iconic ...and willingness to drop what didn't work - no matter how big a part of the original/franchise that it was - and try brave, bold new things.
__________________
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bryceburchett
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bryceburchett
03dashk64@gmail.com ("dash" *is* spelled out!)
bryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.