Paramount going ahead with ST4 according to Engage

[Khan 2.0]

maybe the ending will be like the end of Matrix 3 with everything being 'wiped over'/reset back to TOS (CG versions of 1960s Shat, Nimoy etc on the TOS bridge) cmon who wouldn't love to see that on the big screen.. youd just about pass out from the sheer trekkieness of it

 

[F. King Daniel]

Trekkies:

"We want something fresh and new!"

Followed shortly by:

"Undo everything and reset the timeline!"

Shaking. My. Head.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

If the definition of "Fresh and new" means completely destroying everything built up over the last 50+ years...

Never really cared for revisionist ideology. Fresh and new, could very easily have been something taking place after Nemesis.. or a totally different ship, different crew, after Picard was already an ambassador.. or a movie trilogy about the Earth Romulan War..

Reboots are lack of new ideas.. the Trek universe is limitless.. but, instead of expanding, it destroyed 50 years of plot development, and an Alpha Quadrant power.

ST4 has to either restore the timeline, or further establish Kelvin as Prime. (As much as I hate to say.)

 

[F. King Daniel]

If the definition of "Fresh and new" means completely destroying everything built up over the last 50+ years...

Except they haven't. They established an alternate timeline to tell new stories with old characters, unencumbered by existing continuity. If them having a new series set in the Prime universe coming out next May doesn't convince you of that... I've got nothing.

Never really cared for revisionist ideology. Fresh and new, could very easily have been something taking place after Nemesis.. or a totally different ship, different crew, after Picard was already an ambassador.. or a movie trilogy about the Earth Romulan War..

Reboots are lack of new ideas.. the Trek universe is limitless.. but, instead of expanding, it destroyed 50 years of plot development, and an Alpha Quadrant power.

Reboots aren't a lack of new ideas at all. People have been putting fresh spins on classic stories forever. "What if..?" is the very basis of science fiction. Seeing Kirk, Batman, James Bond, Sherlock etc do things we could never see their original incarnations do, for one reason or another, is awesome IMHO.

ST4 has to either restore the timeline, or further establish Kelvin as Prime. (As much as I hate to say.)

ST4 will further its universe. Discovery will further prime.

 

[Smellmet]

If the definition of "Fresh and new" means completely destroying everything built up over the last 50+ years...

Never really cared for revisionist ideology. Fresh and new, could very easily have been something taking place after Nemesis.. or a totally different ship, different crew, after Picard was already an ambassador.. or a movie trilogy about the Earth Romulan War..

Reboots are lack of new ideas.. the Trek universe is limitless.. but, instead of expanding, it destroyed 50 years of plot development, and an Alpha Quadrant power.

ST4 has to either restore the timeline, or further establish Kelvin as Prime. (As much as I hate to say.)

Some remakes/reboots have been totally unnecessary - Point Break, Robocop, Total Recall, usually when the source material is a classic and won't be topped. Trek I think is a little different, there's maybe one film in the entire franchise you'd call a classic, and that's still a stretch for most people. The movie series also came to a shuddering halt in 2002, and the TV show it's based on is massively dated also. It was ripe for the type of treatment we saw in 2009, and I think they did a great job. Nothing has been destroyed.

It wasn't that long ago I found out that the 1983 gangster classic Scarface was indeed, a remake. They can and do work sometimes.

 

[Greysun]

Looking forward to it, especially if the Mirror Universe theory is correct.

 

[Jedman67]

Can you imagine today's generation sitting through a Picard speech? They would be looking at their phone 2 minutes in and waiting for the next explosion.

Picard's speeches are deadly. One monologue can kill a romulan warbird at 3 light minutes!

 

[The Lonely Man]

Another Trek movie can only be good news, I'm interested what direction they take with this, I wasn't a huge fan of Beyond and have always felt that Trek doesn't really fit the stereotypical big budget Hollywood action movie.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Really hope they do the Mirror Universe. That would be awesome.

Regarding all this "real" or "not real" Trek nonsense...let's just stop with that. It's all real Trek. We can talk about what we think works or doesn't work, but questions about Trek legitimacy are boring and tired and pointless. TWOK and TUC had tons of action and 'splosions. And the reboots have philosophical and moral underpinnings too, if you're paying attention. And I'm a millennial and I can listen to Picard speeches all goddamn day. This "you're all just staring at your phones" stuff needs to stop. It's condescending and ignorant.

 

[Smellmet]

Really hope they do the Mirror Universe. That would be awesome.

Regarding all this "real" or "not real" Trek nonsense...let's just stop with that. It's all real Trek. We can talk about what we think works or doesn't work, but questions about Trek legitimacy are boring and tired and pointless. TWOK and TUC had tons of action and 'splosions. And the reboots have philosophical and moral underpinnings too, if you're paying attention. And I'm a millennial and I can listen to Picard speeches all goddamn day. This "you're all just staring at your phones" stuff needs to stop. It's condescending and ignorant.

Hear hear.

 

[PixelMagic]

Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness were retreads enough. No more references to classic Trek. Do something new.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

Despite my opinions... The track record with something new is rather unlucky.. Insurrection, Nemesis, and Enterprise were new... Yet they flopped.. not because of the Trek fan base.. but because it didn't draw in new people. (I believe I read somewhere that marketing for Nemesis was done horridly and it was released too close to a better advertised movie..)

Although I disagree with the way Kelvin has expanded, it has brought in many who wouldn't have bothered with a completely fresh and new Trek storyline.. It's all about the money honestly, and they've had great financial success rehashing the most iconic crew of the entire Trek universe..

With them, is not about storyline, canon, universes or fans.. it's pure financials.

ST4 could be either a blockbuster, or the inevitable dud for the rebooted series of movies.. They end up having them at some point.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

With them, is not about storyline, canon, universes or fans.. it's pure financials.

I'm not sure who you mean by "them." If you mean Paramount, well yeah, absolutely. It's the studio's job to care about the financials. But I would take issue with the idea that the creators, the writers and directors, are making these movies solely because of the paycheck. Simon Pegg and Doug Jung in particular are fans of the series and have a great deal of respect for the franchise, and the fans. Karl Urban as well, big TOS and TMP guy, and very gracious to fans. And if you listen to the Mission Log interview with Roberto Orci, regardless of your feelings about his movies, he's a sincere guy who cares about the material. Point being, just because something is a blockbuster or makes a lot of money (and Trek hasn't even made that much money), doesn't mean the creators don't care about it.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

I'm not sure who you mean by "them." If you mean Paramount, well yeah, absolutely. It's the studio's job to care about the financials. But I would take issue with the idea that the creators, the writers and directors, are making these movies solely because of the paycheck. Simon Pegg and Doug Jung in particular are fans of the series and have a great deal of respect for the franchise, and the fans. Karl Urban as well, big TOS and TMP guy, and very gracious to fans. And if you listen to the Mission Log interview with Roberto Orci, regardless of your feelings about his movies, he's a sincere guy who cares about the material. Point being, just because something is a blockbuster or makes a lot of money (and Trek hasn't even made that much money), doesn't mean the creators don't care about it.

Oh of course.. the people creating, writing, directing may care.. some may even be fans as you pointed out . However, that isn't what makes it to the screen all the time. I understand your point, but my inference was to the people holding the Fate of Trek in their hands.. Paramount amd CBS.

If they chose a bunch of random writers, directors, and creators who simply want to make a few million dollars, to make a Trek movie in which the entire thing was destroyed, or there was some finite end to the universe of Trek, and then mothball it indefinitely? Nothing could be done. Regardless of writers, directors or creators that may actually be immersed into, and adore the franchise, if Paramountand CBS decided Trek was over - they could do it. If they wanted to end ST4 with some sort of dream sequence and suddenly, someone looking like Roddenberry wakes up - only to start writing "Star Trek" - they could.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Oh of course.. the people creating, writing, directing may care.. some may even be fans as you pointed out . However, that isn't what makes it to the screen all the time. I understand your point, but my inference was to the people holding the Fate of Trek in their hands.. Paramount amd CBS.

If they chose a bunch of random writers, directors, and creators who simply want to make a few million dollars, to make a Trek movie in which the entire thing was destroyed, or there was some finite end to the universe of Trek, and then mothball it indefinitely? Nothing could be done. Regardless of writers, directors or creators that may actually be immersed into, and adore the franchise, if Paramountand CBS decided Trek was over - they could do it. If they wanted to end ST4 with some sort of dream sequence and suddenly, someone looking like Roddenberry wakes up - only to start writing "Star Trek" - they could.

Yeah they could but they're not going to do that, because the franchise has goodwill and a fanbase, so anything that could seriously damage that goodwill ultimately isn't good for their profit margin. And while Paramount and CBS do care primarily about profit and their investors, they hire talented people who care about the franchise to run it. CBS hired Bryan Fuller, Nicholas Meyer and Kirstin Beyer to work on Discovery. Paramount picked Simon Pegg to replace Orci on writing Beyond, when they could have picked someone who doesn't know anything about Trek. All super talented people who care about Star Trek. There's lots to be cynical about with respect to the movie and tv industry. But it's not all moneybags and bottom lines. The people actually doing the creating, at least in Star Trek's case, more often than not care about the material.

 

[M'Sharak]

maybe the ending will be like the end of Matrix 3 with everything being 'wiped over'/reset back to TOS (CG versions of 1960s Shat, Nimoy etc on the TOS bridge) cmon who wouldn't love to see that on the big screen..

**raises hand**

I wouldn't.

youd just about pass out from the sheer trekkieness of it

No, but I might roll my eyes really hard.

 

[Greg Cox]

It wasn't that long ago I found out that the 1983 gangster classic Scarface was indeed, a remake. They can and do work sometimes.

With the new MUMMY movie coming out, I'm already cringing and gnashing my teeth every time somebody refers to the 1999 Brendan Fraser movie as the "original" version of THE MUMMY.

Tell that to Boris Karloff . . .and Tom Tyler, and Lon Chaney Jr., and Christopher Lee.

Reboots and remakes are nothing new, and are often a great way to give an old property a new lease on life . . . or unlife. And let's give the audience some credit; the average moviegoer can certainly distinguish between multiple versions of the same character or universe. Most people understand that the Ben Affleck BATMAN is not Christian Bale BATMAN or the Michael Keaton BATMAN or the Adam West BATMAN, etc.

Going back to the Mummy comparison. . . even as a kid, I had no trouble grasping that the various different Mummy movies were not all set in the same seamless continuity. And it would have never occurred to me that any of the later movies had to reset the continuity back to the original 1932 movie for the sake of restoring the "canon" or whatever.

Same with STAR TREK.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

Yeah they could but they're not going to do that, because the franchise has goodwill and a fanbase, so anything that could seriously damage that goodwill ultimately isn't good for their profit margin. And while Paramount and CBS do care primarily about profit and their investors, they hire talented people who care about the franchise to run it. CBS hired Bryan Fuller, Nicholas Meyer and Kirstin Beyer to work on Discovery. Paramount picked Simon Pegg to replace Orci on writing Beyond, when they could have picked someone who doesn't know anything about Trek. All super talented people who care about Star Trek. There's lots to be cynical about with respect to the movie and tv industry. But it's not all moneybags and bottom lines. The people actually doing the creating, at least in Star Trek's case, more often than not care about the material.

I truly do hope you are correct.

**raises hand**

I wouldn't.


No, but I might roll my eyes really hard.

I tend to agree.. that would be an ultimate buzzkill. Sentimental? Sure.. but Beyond did great without having a prime character in it.. The picture of the original crew given to Spock was as good a send off and salute to TOS as was needed. Frankly I liked it myself.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

With the new MUMMY movie coming out, I'm already cringing and gnashing my teeth every time somebody refers to the 1999 Brendan Fraser movie as the "original" version of THE MUMMY.

Tell that Boris Karloff . . .and Tom Tyler, and Lon Chaney Jr., and Christopher Lee . . .

Reboots and remakes are nothing new, and are often a great way to give an old property a new lease on life . . . or unlife.

Same applies to STAR TREK.

Valid point... After all, remaking Superman did wonders, and Batman has been made, and remade so many times... With success.

Suppose Trek can benefit still from it.. after all, parallel universes are part of the whole thing as well. And now it's solidified in canon, other than Parallels and Mirror Universe episodes.

 

[Greg Cox]

Valid point... After all, remaking Superman did wonders, and Batman has been made, and remade so many times... With success.

Suppose Trek can benefit still from it.. after all, parallel universes are part of the whole thing as well. And now it's solidified in canon, other than Parallels and Mirror Universe episodes.

Exactly. And those of us who grew up on DC Comics have understood about Earth-1, Earth-2, and the idea that "continuity" is not necessarily set in stone since we were kids back in the sixties. It's not a radical new idea.