Paramount Confirms TWO Star Trek films currently in the works!

[Christopher]

I agree with that with one caveat, and that is with Kirk. His development may very well have differed, maybe significantly, from his prime counterpart because of his father being killed at his birth.

Yes, that too. So he started out in an even rougher place. But he still ended up being pretty much the same Captain Kirk, as we see in Beyond. So it was always in him to become that man, even when he started out at a greater disadvantage. It was always the intent to chart his growth into that man over the course of a trilogy.

For the remainder of the characters much of their origins probably remained unchanged. Obviously they were assigned to the Enterprise much younger than they were originally,

Except for Spock, whose Prime counterpart was on the E a good 4 years earlier.

Well, but it clearly was intended as a direct continuiation. They even originally wanted the same actor to play Phelps - but he understandably refused, not wanting to completely ruin his famed character.

Yes, that was the starting intent, but I'm talking about the actual result. If they had gotten Graves, then yes, it would've certainly looked like a continuation. But since they didn't get Graves, that means there was no proof either way. It could be freely interpreted as either a continuation where Phelps went bad (or was replaced by an impostor) or a complete reboot, because there was nothing in the final film to rule out either possibility. Which continued to be the case until Rogue Nation and its line about the IMF being 40 years old -- and even that could just be interpreted as a misstatement or a filmmakers' error rather than proof of a reboot. It could still be interpreted either way

Besides, sharing an actor does not automatically mean sharing a reality. Does anyone think that the Dan Aykroyd Dragnet spoof is really in the same reality as the classic TV series just because it had Harry Morgan reprising Bill Gannon? And we know that the Daniel Craig Bond films are a continuity reboot even though they brought back Judi Dench as M. Not to mention all the times that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill have played Batman and the Joker in animated continuities unconnected to the DC Animated Universe. Or Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce playing Holmes and Watson in a radio series set in the Victorian Era at the same time they were appearing in the Universal films that updated Holmes and Watson to the 1940s.

And Mission: Impossible itself always played fast and loose with continuity -- there were times when the whole team exposed their faces on national or international TV at the end of one episode but were back to being unknowns who could successfully pass as other people by the very next week. And in the last two seasons, every time they achieved a victory that brought down the leading organized crime syndicate in the US, there was always another equally pervasive crime syndicate still in power by the following week. Not to mention that several episodes of the '88 revival were direct remakes of original series episodes, which further unravels any pretense of a uniform continuity. This has always been the kind of franchise where you can't take continuity too seriously or literally, because the producers never did.

That's not how business work. Not at all. CBS held off on a new series without Bar Robots involvement during the run of three BR movies because they weren't contractually allowed to.

Even if that's true, you admit that it was only during the run of those movies, not forever. Which was my actual point.

But that they even split the television rights in the first place is a pretty clear indicator that, would they have been content with JJ Abrams products, they would have gone forward with switching the franchise to the "new" timeline.

Uhh, no, because the split of rights was not about Star Trek specifically. It was about Viacom splitting itself into two media companies, one getting the conglomerate's TV networks and related assets and the other getting its film studios and related assets. Since ST existed in both TV and film, that meant its rights had to be split, but only as a side effect of a much larger corporate schism, certainly not as the cause or driving force behind it.

And the split in rights probably means that CBS couldn't have done anything in the Kelvin Timeline, not without BR and Paramount's cooperation, anyway. That's probably the reason Discovery is in Prime -- because it's a strictly CBS production.

But here is the thing, though: Young Kirk was a nerdy bookworm, much more interested in his studies than in girls. That's well established in the television series. His more confident, rule-breaking cavalier-persona came only later, as a consequence of his experience and successes.

First off: See my above conversation with Damian on this point.

Second: Kirk never had a "rule-breaking cavalier persona." That is a myth propagated by people who focus only on the movies and forget the TV series. The Kirk of TOS was very dedicated to following the letter of his orders and regulations, even when he disagreed with them. Look at "The Galileo Seven" where he resisted Ferris's orders to abandon the search for his crew but still finally obeyed them -- and where the only reason they were in that situation in the first place was because of Kirk's by-the-book adherence to the standing orders about quasarlike phenomena.

 

[Rahul]

As I wrote 6 weeks ago: I remain unconvinced that any new Star Trek movie will go into production anytime soon. There is too much behind-the-scenes disarray, not even counting the talk about a (separate? or same-continuity?) Tarantino movie. Paramount would be foolish to mount such a big expensive production until its own situation stabilizes, and that would be the case even if Beyond had been a big hit. I don't think the presumable major success of M:I Fallout has any relevance, as its production began long before the current dispute over control of CBS/Paramount/Viacom. If anything it will make Paramount a more attractive takeover target. Yes, I know that a director and screenwriters have been announced, but that has been the case for other would-be-noteworthy movies that didn't ever make it into production.

ST4 is pretty well into production, and is guaranteed to make it onscreen.
Yes, it's a bit of a risk for Paramount, since they don't have reliable expectations (Box office could be anything from less than "Beyond" to more then the original ST09). And if the studio would have other hit franchises in the works they would likely focus on them primarily. But Paramount is in a bit of a bind: Except from Transformers and M:I they simply don't have other successfull IP's. They have to try it again with Trek if they want to stay in the movie business. Sheer out of lack of alternatives.

 

[Rahul]

Even if that's true, you admit that it was only during the run of those movies, not forever. Which was my actual point.

Well. That's the result, since we have a new "prime" show now. But I'm talking about the original intent. And that was to replace the continuity with the new rebooted version. It just didn't fly because fans, and ultimately CBS, rejected that. But that negative reaction simply came because of the rejection of the original intention - creating a "new" continuity for Trek and abandoning the old.

Uhh, no, because the split of rights was not about Star Trek specifically. It was about Viacom splitting itself into two media companies, one getting the conglomerate's TV networks and related assets and the other getting its film studios and related assets. Since ST existed in both TV and film, that meant its rights had to be split, but only as a side effect of a much larger corporate schism, certainly not as the cause or driving force behind it.

And the split in rights probably means that CBS couldn't have done anything in the Kelvin Timeline, not without BR and Paramount's cooperation, anyway. That's probably the reason Discovery is in Prime -- because it's a strictly CBS production.

I'm not talking about that original split. I'm talking about that timeframe where CBS clearly gave up the rights to independantly produce new Star Trek content on television for the run of three Bad Robot Trek movies.

Second: Kirk never had a "rule-breaking cavalier persona." That is a myth propagated by people who focus only on the movies and forget the TV series. The Kirk of TOS was very dedicated to following the letter of his orders and regulations, even when he disagreed with them. Look at "The Galileo Seven" where he resisted Ferris's orders to abandon the search for his crew but still finally obeyed them -- and where the only reason they were in that situation in the first place was because of Kirk's by-the-book adherence to the standing orders about quasarlike phenomena.

Well he did have. In the movies. Later in his life.
Something that somewhat started in TOS, where he sometimes was cleverly interpreting the rules to bend them a little in his favours (though still technically completely following them).

But yeah - Kirk was a really by-the-books guy. Which makes the assertion that he "needed to start out" as a bro-dude to become the "regular" Kirk later even more ridiculous - if anything, the original Kirk went the exact opposite route.

Yes, that was the starting intent, but I'm talking about the actual result. If they had gotten Graves, then yes, it would've certainly looked like a continuation. But since they didn't get Graves, that means there was no proof either way. It could be freely interpreted as either a continuation where Phelps went bad (or was replaced by an impostor) or a complete reboot, because there was nothing in the final film to rule out either possibility. Which continued to be the case until Rogue Nation and its line about the IMF being 40 years old -- and even that could just be interpreted as a misstatement or a filmmakers' error rather than proof of a reboot. It could still be interpreted either way

Besides, sharing an actor does not automatically mean sharing a reality. Does anyone think that the Dan Aykroyd Dragnet spoof is really in the same reality as the classic TV series just because it had Harry Morgan reprising Bill Gannon? And we know that the Daniel Craig Bond films are a continuity reboot even though they brought back Judi Dench as M. Not to mention all the times that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill have played Batman and the Joker in animated continuities unconnected to the DC Animated Universe. Or Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce playing Holmes and Watson in a radio series set in the Victorian Era at the same time they were appearing in the Universal films that updated Holmes and Watson to the 1940s.

And Mission: Impossible itself always played fast and loose with continuity -- there were times when the whole team exposed their faces on national or international TV at the end of one episode but were back to being unknowns who could successfully pass as other people by the very next week. And in the last two seasons, every time they achieved a victory that brought down the leading organized crime syndicate in the US, there was always another equally pervasive crime syndicate still in power by the following week. Not to mention that several episodes of the '88 revival were direct remakes of original series episodes, which further unravels any pretense of a uniform continuity. This has always been the kind of franchise where you can't take continuity too seriously or literally, because the producers never did.

Agreed.

 

[Khan 2.0]

ST4 is pretty well into production, and is guaranteed to make it onscreen.
Yes, it's a bit of a risk for Paramount, since they don't have reliable expectations (Box office could be anything from less than "Beyond" to more then the original ST09). And if the studio would have other hit franchises in the works they would likely focus on them primarily. But Paramount is in a bit of a bind: Except from Transformers and M:I they simply don't have other successfull IP's. They have to try it again with Trek if they want to stay in the movie business. Sheer out of lack of alternatives.

 

[Damian]

But nevertheless, at the end of ST09, the characters are so far removed from their original characters, that calling it a "prequel" or "reboot" simply doesn't cover it anymore, the divergence is so big,they are essentially entirely new and different characters who's personality has nothing to do with their original appereances anymore.

I'm not sure if I'd totally agree with that. We don't have a lot of backstory on the other characters. Even McCoy's history we get mostly in dribs and drabs. The novels filled a lot of that in, but on screen canon often does not take that into account. Maybe there are some differences in how the characters appear in the Abramsverse movies then they did in the original series, but even Beyond actually takes place before the original series main timeframe so some of that may owe to their being younger.

Yes, that too. So he started out in an even rougher place. But he still ended up being pretty much the same Captain Kirk, as we see in Beyond. So it was always in him to become that man, even when he started out at a greater disadvantage. It was always the intent to chart his growth into that man over the course of a trilogy.

Yes...and no. I mean part of the point of the prequel element was to show how they got to that point we see in the original series. However I would argue for Kirk his doubts are a laid out a bit more bare in the Abramsverse movies. He is not quite as confident. Some of that is age, yes, but some of that is probably altered by his changed history. Captain Kirk of the original series would never have apologized to his crew like he did in STID. He'd find a way out of it. He had doubts at times in the original series, but he would only ever voice them to McCoy and sometimes Spock. When it came to the crew he was always the confident commander. Spock noted how important that was in "The Enemy Within".

Now that's not a criticism. I actually agree with some of the subtle changes because the changes in the timeline meant their experiences would be different. Who we are at our core does not mean we aren't changed by our experiences. Kirk would necessarily be a bit different from Kirk from the prime timeline. I think it pointed to a stronger story writing in that the writers recognized this and added some subtle changes to the Kirk and some of the other characters. How our experiences things that shape us vs. who we are at are core is even something Nemesis tried to explore with Schinzon, when Schinzon tries to argue that Picard would do exactly what he (Schinzon) was doing if he lived his life. In that case it was from the other direction because who Picard is at his core would not allow him to take the same actions Schinzon did. How much are we who we are because of our soul, for lack of a better work, and how much is shaped by our environment. Nemesis and the Abramsverse movies I thought did a pretty good job of developing that theme.

Second: Kirk never had a "rule-breaking cavalier persona." That is a myth propagated by people who focus only on the movies and forget the TV series. The Kirk of TOS was very dedicated to following the letter of his orders and regulations, even when he disagreed with them. Look at "The Galileo Seven" where he resisted Ferris's orders to abandon the search for his crew but still finally obeyed them -- and where the only reason they were in that situation in the first place was because of Kirk's by-the-book adherence to the standing orders about quasarlike phenomena.

I mostly agree with you there. I think he had a bit of maverick in him. But he was actually judicious in how he exercised that part of his personality. He took his responsibilities seriously. He occasionally 'broke' the rules but I think mostly when following the rules would have violated the spirit of what the Federation stood for. I would say though that he wasn't a yes-man in the sense that he would follow orders without question. He would push the limits, like in "The Galileo Seven" He did what he was ordered to but he bent the rules as much as possible without breaking them. When ordered to leave he ordered them to leave at the lowest acceptable speed. Another BTB captain may have just warped out of there.

By TSFS again we see a character that has grown and changed over time. His loyalty to Spock becoming more important then following the rules. And this case Starfleet is more concerned with rules and regulations then with people. I didn't blame Admiral Kirk for telling them to basically stick it. You'd think if Kirk, the Kirk, asked basically for a mercy mission from Starfleet, with the backing of one of the most revered Ambassadors in the Federation in Sarek, that they would cut him a little slack. Kirk who saved Earth and the Federation how many times. Who didn't do things on a whim and usually turned out right. So it made sense that Kirk would break the rules under those circumstances. But I'd still hesitate to say he was just some cowboy looking to break the rules the first chance he got. He'd much rather follow rules and regulations but he wouldn't let them stop him from doing the right thing. He was just very adept at knowing what the right thing was, probably the reason he was a legendary captain.

 

[gottacook]

ST4 is pretty well into production, and is guaranteed to make it onscreen.

According to what source? Nothing I've found indicates anything more than that scriptwriters and a director have been named. Are you saying you know that locations are being scouted, props and costumes being made, etc.? The actors' availability isn't even scheduled yet.

 

[F. King Daniel]

According to what source? Nothing I've found indicates anything more than that scriptwriters and a director have been named. Are you saying you know that locations are being scouted, props and costumes being made, etc.? The actors' availability isn't even scheduled yet.

Did you say Locations?

 

[Christopher]

Well. That's the result, since we have a new "prime" show now. But I'm talking about the original intent. And that was to replace the continuity with the new rebooted version.

As I've already explained, that's a completely ridiculous thing to claim, and I won't argue over it any further.

By TSFS again we see a character that has grown and changed over time. His loyalty to Spock becoming more important then following the rules.

That's not a change. The one time he did overtly violate orders in TOS, rather than just bending them, was in "Amok Time," to save Spock's life. Similarly, TSFS was basically the only time in the movies he overtly violated Starfleet orders. Okay, in TVH he arguably disobeyed the President's order to stay away from Earth, but that was because he had a solution to the problem. Other than that, he followed orders even when he objected to them, notably when he was ordered to host Gorkon's delegation.

And this case Starfleet is more concerned with rules and regulations then with people. I didn't blame Admiral Kirk for telling them to basically stick it. You'd think if Kirk, the Kirk, asked basically for a mercy mission from Starfleet, with the backing of one of the most revered Ambassadors in the Federation in Sarek, that they would cut him a little slack.

That's ignoring the lines about Genesis being a galactic controversy. To the other powers of the galaxy, it looked like a Federation superweapon. The Genesis system was restricted because it was a political powderkeg. A Starfleet capital ship going there could've been seen as a provocative move and brought the galaxy closer to war. Starfleet had very good reason to declare it off-limits.

Kirk who saved Earth and the Federation how many times.

As of 2285, he'd saved Earth maybe three times, in "The City on the Edge of Forever," "The Changeling," and TMP, and the whole Federation once, in "City." But "City" is arguable because it was his crew that created the threat to Earth and the UFP in the first place, so that probably cancels out. TOS didn't fall back on the "Earth in danger" cliche as much as later films and shows did, or go for the melodrama of massive threats to the entire Federation.

He was just very adept at knowing what the right thing was, probably the reason he was a legendary captain.

Exactly. One thing a lot of people don't get is that as a captain on the far frontier, days or weeks from contact with any superiors, it was part of his job to be the guy who interpreted the regulations and laws and decide whether and how to apply them to unpredictable situations. He was chosen for that responsibility because he was able to make those choices well. And the same goes for every other Starfleet captain.

 

[Garth Rockett]

According to what source? Nothing I've found indicates anything more than that scriptwriters and a director have been named. Are you saying you know that locations are being scouted, props and costumes being made, etc.? The actors' availability isn't even scheduled yet.

Agreed. I'd say I'm about 90% certain we're going to get this movie, but realistically, what do we have so far? A director, a script in some form (presumably), some initial meetings with a few of the actors, and perhaps some preliminary design work depending on what Simon Pegg meant by "in prep." In other words, it's about as far along as Star Trek: Planet of the Titans was when the plug was pulled on it. I think it's extremely likely, but not at the point of "guaranteed" yet.

 

[Damian]

That's ignoring the lines about Genesis being a galactic controversy. To the other powers of the galaxy, it looked like a Federation superweapon. The Genesis system was restricted because it was a political powderkeg. A Starfleet capital ship going there could've been seen as a provocative move and brought the galaxy closer to war. Starfleet had very good reason to declare it off-limits.

I get that. It just seemed the Starfleet brass were overly dismissive of Kirk (and Sarek). Admiral Morrow was just no way. Kirk was even trying to explore alternatives with him (hiring another ship). Even if that weren't feasible you'd think Morrow would have made an attempt to meet Kirk partway. You know, hey, we have a Starfleet ship there already with the Grissom. At the very least he could have told Kirk, already a legendary name in the Federation with good reason, that he would have Grissom investigate it for him, even make it a priority. And if they found something they would make sure it's taken care of. But nothing? And worse they basically blew him off. They almost had to know that Kirk would not just sit back and say oh well (esp. considering Amok Time).

I guess I overstated saving Earth and the entire Federation. But he did save individual planets numerous times beyond Earth, sometimes planets he never knew. I actually never got the criticism some people level at Generations questioning him giving his live for the people of Veridian IV who he presumably never heard of. Of course he would, without question (well, he did initially consider turning Picard down but duty eventually won out). In a way it's even a more heroic sacrifice...after all how many of us would sacrifice ourselves for people we never heard of and knew nothing about.

But I get what you are saying, that a few isolated, if significant events, do not mean Kirk was a rule breaking maverick. He typically followed if not the letter of the regulations the spirit. He broke them in TSFS for what ended up being a virtuous reason and only after he exhausted attempts to work within the rules.

 

[Christopher]

I guess I overstated saving Earth and the entire Federation. But he did save individual planets numerous times beyond Earth, sometimes planets he never knew.

And surely he was far from the only Starfleet captain who did that. It was literally their job.

 

[pst]

Agreed. I'd say I'm about 90% certain we're going to get this movie, but realistically, what do we have so far? A director, a script in some form (presumably), some initial meetings with a few of the actors, and perhaps some preliminary design work depending on what Simon Pegg meant by "in prep." In other words, it's about as far along as Star Trek: Planet of the Titans was when the plug was pulled on it. I think it's extremely likely, but not at the point of "guaranteed" yet.

it would be a pretty big black eye for paramount if they pulled the plug after they went so far as to announce a director. it's happening.

 

[Rahul]

As I've already explained, that's a completely ridiculous thing to claim, and I won't argue over it any further.

Because in your mind, if in Hollywood a major studio is rebooting a property, they right then and there plan to go back to their original, pre-rebooted property right back again after that. Because that's how Hollywood operates. Yeah.

No, they originally planned to continue their "new" timeline and discontinue their old one. That's why they weren't even producing books in the old timeline anymore for a time. The plan was to start from a clean slate. And grow a new franchise from there.

Everything since then - including naming that reboot as a "Kelvin" timeline (and not "the" timeline anymore), and going back to produce more and more material in the "original" "prime" timeline again, is purely and simply only one thing: backtracking. Because of negative reactions. Which is a thing Hollywood studios actually do if they noticed they've made a miscalculation. And it took 'em quite a while to do that. Because they were contractually entangled with their new rebooted IP.

 

[pst]

Everything since then - including naming that reboot as a "Kelvin" timeline (and not "the" timeline anymore), and going back to produce more and more material in the "original" "prime" timeline again, is purely and simply only one thing: backtracking. Because of negative reactions. Which is a thing Hollywood studios actually do if they noticed they've made a miscalculation. And it took 'em quite a while to do that. Because they were contractually entangled with their new rebooted IP.

this might be correct if it's the same powers behind the kelvin timeline films and star trek discovery. but it's not. paramount does the films. CBS does the TV shows.

paramount will continue to make kelvin timeline films if they make money regardless of "negative reactions", which are basically just fan complaints anyway (they've been critically well received and successful at the box office). the only reaction paramount cares about is box office performance. star trek beyond didn't do well but they're banking on it being a fluke.

CBS isn't walking away from the kelvin timeline, they never had the rights to do a kelvin timeline TV show in the first place.

 

[Damian]

And surely he was far from the only Starfleet captain who did that. It was literally their job.

Yeah, but wasn't Captain Kirk one of the most successful Captains. He's quoted a number of times in later shows as basically being a legend. I'm not saying there weren't other Captains who saved worlds, but I always thought Kirk was legendary and iconic as a Starfleet Captain. I never got the impression that he was 'just' a Captain, like any other. That he could be interchanged with any other Captain. But rather he was a Captain other officers looked up to.

 

[Garth Rockett]

it would be a pretty big black eye for paramount if they pulled the plug after they went so far as to announce a director. it's happening.

I fully expect it to happen. But unless I missed something, Paramount has not announced anything. Clarkson's hiring has been reported, and some of the actors have commented on it publicly, but Paramount still hasn't officially said anything that I've seen.

 

[pst]

I fully expect it to happen. But unless I missed something, Paramount has not announced anything. Clarkson's hiring has been reported, and some of the actors have commented on it publicly, but Paramount still hasn't officially said anything that I've seen.

according to reporting, they announced it at cinemacon in april.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, but wasn't Captain Kirk one of the most successful Captains. He's quoted a number of times in later shows as basically being a legend.

Which is a practice that annoys me, because it's imposing a fannish point of view onto the in-story reality. Kirk and the Enterprise are the most important ships to us, so they must automatically be the only ships that matter within the universe. I think that's a lazy assumption. What about the captains that Kirk himself admired as role models, like Garth, or the accomplished veterans like Decker and Wesley? Good grief, he was supposed to be the least accomplished Constitution-class captain at the time of TOS, because he was the youngest. He was the one who looked up to the other captains. Everyone forgets that because they're blinded by fannish sentiment. It makes no sense to assume that Starfleet would give one of its most important ships to a great man and give the other 11 to a bunch of forgettable nobodies. Logically, there should be plenty of captains in Starfleet who are just as accomplished as Kirk, just as worthy of admiration. Including the captains that Kirk himself admired.

 

[Garth Rockett]

according to reporting, they announced it at cinemacon in april.

Thanks, I had not seen that.

 

[Garth Rockett]

Which is a practice that annoys me, because it's imposing a fannish point of view onto the in-story reality. Kirk and the Enterprise are the most important ships to us, so they must automatically be the only ships that matter within the universe. I think that's a lazy assumption.

I certainly agree that it would be a mistake to think that Kirk was the only important captain in Starfleet or that the Enterprise was the only important ship in his time (although I can't recall anyone making that particular argument). Conversely, while other captains may have had careers as interesting as Kirk's, we should be safe to assume no one else in his time had careers that were more interesting than Kirk's. That would imply we haven't been getting the most interesting stories possible for 50+ years. So Kirk has to be one of the very best. Otherwise, what's the point of telling his story vs. a better, more accomplished captain, whose feats would presumably make even better stories?

What about the captains that Kirk himself admired as role models, like Garth, or the accomplished veterans like Decker and Wesley?

What about them? Babe Ruth said that he thought Joe Jackson was the greatest hitter he had ever seen. Many regard Jackson as one of the all-time greats, but you'd be hard pressed to find many who'd say he was better than Ruth. Chipper Jones and Willie Mays were both voted in to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot, but no one would say Jones was as good as Mays. Saying Kirk was one of the greatest, or even the greatest, doesn't mean (or even imply) no one else was great.