Wait, there are people put there who think JJ Trek is fake Trek but Discovery is real?
You might want to tell her Discovery is run by one of the writers and producers of JJ Trek.
Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag
- Thread starter Doc Mugatu
- Start date
You might want to tell her Discovery is run by one of the writers and producers of JJ Trek.
The hardcore fans are the only people that seen to think it's not "real". Certainly the people around me know it's the same universe as the other TV shows, but given a new lick of paint.
And none of it is real. It has been fifty years, and no one that worked on TOS is currently working on Discovery. Discovery is its own thing.
I'm certain he just means during the period DSC is set in. Now we know that is the case, as we have new cast members playing the key Pike crew.
I personally couldn't give a shit if the show is a completely new universe, but I'm going to believe it's the Prime universe as they say it is.
I think fans that dispute this are the same type of people who think [completely-out-of-place political topic redacted]. No amount of facts or logic could convince them otherwise.
I personally couldn't give a shit if the show is a completely new universe, but I'm going to believe it's the Prime universe as they say it is.
I think fans that dispute this are the same type of people who think [completely-out-of-place political topic redacted]. No amount of facts or logic could convince them otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't do that. This has nothing to do with politics. It is people simply disagreeing.
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean, every time there are news about startrek4 they are trending on twitter and other sites, but I guess it's because people don't care or they pretend to be excited or, recently, sad for the cast rumors.
It's amazing how the internet can constantly try to preach about a 'majority', but it makes no effort to even try gauging the general, actual, response something gets through numbers and facts. It seems easier to stay ignoring all the people that go to watch x thing, and talk about it online, to selectively focus only on few guys online who don't like that thing.
That's how stid ended up getting paraded around as an universally hated flop just because of some haters online, so I can't say I'm surprised by the pattern repeating itself to now create a narrative about the franchise as a whole.
I don't know how being a 'science fiction fan' makes her opinion more reliable and valid, let alone qualify as the majority.
And I don't even want to comment on the kind of fans who use expressions like 'real Spock'..
nevertheless, please tell me what she will say when disco Spock will be more a 'fake Spock' wannabe than a 'real Spock' clone. Don't tell her that Kurtzman already admitted that they had Quinto's portrayal in mind too, though she surely must have noticed something vaguely similar in the new hot guy in town.. (and the guy mentioned Quinto's 'brilliant' Spock when talking about the responsibility he has now)
No, it is people steadfastly adhering to things that are demonstrably false and simultaneously refusing to believe objectively verifiable truths.
That is a perfectly fine example of the same phenomenon.
I am curious what Paramount intend to budget this movie. They've got a first-time movie director, they're trying to go cheap on the Chris' salaries... are we in for a sub-$100million Trek adventure?
It wouldn't surprise me at all. I can't see it being above 120m. The risk is too great, there's no guarantee ST4 will even make Beyond's figure. I fear the returns on big screen Trek movies have gone back to how they were pre-reboot.
If Paramount knew how to market this, they could put it in big-hit territory. On the other hand, I have a feeling that Paramount will have learned nothing from their failing with Beyond and many of their recent movies.
While I can understand those fears, it's also possible the recent hype surrounding Star Trek (for Destiny, Discovery and the rest) could benefit the movie franchise.
I was thinking that a 'search for Kirk' kind of movie wouldn't be too bad if the alternative is no Kirk or recasting. Pine would get the paycheck for a smaller, but still very important role.
Spock can be the acting captain, Uhura and Sulu the competent officers who join efforts with him. Bones would be conflicted about his friend vanishing (Kirk's importance to Mccoy, and their friendship, is as underrated by fandom as the spock/uhura bond or the kirk/uhura dynamic. The guy would be destroyed if he lost his friend, more than Spock would honestly. Because Bones has no one else )
You could have a different movie where the captain has gone mia and the crew has to find him. Explore what happens in such circumstances. Add some mystery around the planet or section of space where he vanished too. Make things unpredictable. It could be an opportunity to do more with the other characters too.
Those who say that the general audience wouldn't care about a movie focused more on Spock: I beg to differ. Because, like JJ&Co admitted themselves, the first movie was about Spock more than Kirk and it was successful. There were many people saying that the movies should've made Spock the captain, or focus more on the aftermath of the Vulcan diaspora than Kirk's daddy issues. Many were expecting a bigger focus on Spock. You can't negate that his character is strong and popular. It's Spock.
If anything, it's Beyond (the weakest of the 3 in terms of success) that sidelined him, in a way, but in the first movies he was co-protagonist with Kirk. Pine never really was treated, in a sense, like Shatner was back in the day.
That was part of the reason why the original trio wasn't the focus too: because while the original trio was first foremost a dynamic about Kirk and the devil and and angel at his sides, in the reboot Spock is elevated to a different role than being just the nerdy, logical friend of hero. There's less of that one dimensional, characters having symbolic roles, approach in the narrative too. In fact, elevating Uhura to the original trio level was itself the result of Kirk and Spock being more equals here, so Spock is allowed to access to narrative elements only Kirk would be allowed to access, and Uhura herself is allowed to access to the part of narrative (the interpersonal relationships with the main guys) Mccoy is allowed to access to with his role as Kirk's friend (it should be noted that both Uhura and Mccoy represent dynamics that already existed before the enterprise and are thus a constant for k/s. They are the continuation of their backstory from the academy)
To be honest, Lin tried to restore the original trio in beyond but in the end, he still didn't and they don't really have so much focus when I think about it. The problem, if you consider it one, is that it can't be the same dynamic because this Spock is more contemporary too ( Urban himself finally seems to have realized that in an interview, and thus understood why the old characters' banter would be forced here and Mccoy cannot have the same exact role he had in tos because Kirk and Spock ARE different. Hence, it isn't like the previous team wanted to sideline Mccoy, they just need to make him part of a different narrative and they couldn't keep things the same as tos because it wouldn't align with different purposes their own narrative has )
Tl dr: they need Kirk, but if he can't be front and center and we don't get a movie about his daddy issues, it isn't the end of the franchise because they had already tried to set up this trek in such a way that if the next movie focused more on Spock and the ensemble, rather than being the Kirk show, it wouldn't be a tragedy.
And honestly, this whole bringing George Kirk back wasn't really a matter of them doing what the audience was lobbying for as much as it is just an attempt to use the popularity the actor has now thank to Thor. Of all the things the next movie could be about, I frankly doubt Kirk's daddy issues and time travel are at the top in the list of things the general audience wants to see, or expects to see. I don't think people will have a nervous breakdown if they don't use that story.
Spock can be the acting captain, Uhura and Sulu the competent officers who join efforts with him. Bones would be conflicted about his friend vanishing (Kirk's importance to Mccoy, and their friendship, is as underrated by fandom as the spock/uhura bond or the kirk/uhura dynamic. The guy would be destroyed if he lost his friend, more than Spock would honestly. Because Bones has no one else )
You could have a different movie where the captain has gone mia and the crew has to find him. Explore what happens in such circumstances. Add some mystery around the planet or section of space where he vanished too. Make things unpredictable. It could be an opportunity to do more with the other characters too.
Those who say that the general audience wouldn't care about a movie focused more on Spock: I beg to differ. Because, like JJ&Co admitted themselves, the first movie was about Spock more than Kirk and it was successful. There were many people saying that the movies should've made Spock the captain, or focus more on the aftermath of the Vulcan diaspora than Kirk's daddy issues. Many were expecting a bigger focus on Spock. You can't negate that his character is strong and popular. It's Spock.
If anything, it's Beyond (the weakest of the 3 in terms of success) that sidelined him, in a way, but in the first movies he was co-protagonist with Kirk. Pine never really was treated, in a sense, like Shatner was back in the day.
That was part of the reason why the original trio wasn't the focus too: because while the original trio was first foremost a dynamic about Kirk and the devil and and angel at his sides, in the reboot Spock is elevated to a different role than being just the nerdy, logical friend of hero. There's less of that one dimensional, characters having symbolic roles, approach in the narrative too. In fact, elevating Uhura to the original trio level was itself the result of Kirk and Spock being more equals here, so Spock is allowed to access to narrative elements only Kirk would be allowed to access, and Uhura herself is allowed to access to the part of narrative (the interpersonal relationships with the main guys) Mccoy is allowed to access to with his role as Kirk's friend (it should be noted that both Uhura and Mccoy represent dynamics that already existed before the enterprise and are thus a constant for k/s. They are the continuation of their backstory from the academy)
To be honest, Lin tried to restore the original trio in beyond but in the end, he still didn't and they don't really have so much focus when I think about it. The problem, if you consider it one, is that it can't be the same dynamic because this Spock is more contemporary too ( Urban himself finally seems to have realized that in an interview, and thus understood why the old characters' banter would be forced here and Mccoy cannot have the same exact role he had in tos because Kirk and Spock ARE different. Hence, it isn't like the previous team wanted to sideline Mccoy, they just need to make him part of a different narrative and they couldn't keep things the same as tos because it wouldn't align with different purposes their own narrative has )
Tl dr: they need Kirk, but if he can't be front and center and we don't get a movie about his daddy issues, it isn't the end of the franchise because they had already tried to set up this trek in such a way that if the next movie focused more on Spock and the ensemble, rather than being the Kirk show, it wouldn't be a tragedy.
And honestly, this whole bringing George Kirk back wasn't really a matter of them doing what the audience was lobbying for as much as it is just an attempt to use the popularity the actor has now thank to Thor. Of all the things the next movie could be about, I frankly doubt Kirk's daddy issues and time travel are at the top in the list of things the general audience wants to see, or expects to see. I don't think people will have a nervous breakdown if they don't use that story.
Last edited:
Alien Covenant cost 97m so its possible. But only grossed 240m way down on Prometheus 400m which cost 130m in 2012. (Can imagine this ST4 doing similar)
Maybe a blockbuster take on The Tholian Web could work? (IDW done that one?) when Enterprise did In A Mirror Darkly remember thinking if they hadn't got Kirk back in TTW hed have been in the mirrorverse 100years ago. so like that add time travel/alt universe stuff (maybe here Pine Kirk ends up in the Prime Universe at the time of one of the previous movies so it'd be like BTTF2/Trials&Tribulations with Kirk snooping around familiar events/trying the blend in until he can get back to his own time ..or like IAMD he ends up in the mirrorverse and all that would entail) Pine would have a major role (but no need for Thor) and Spock would be Captain of the Ent for the whole movie
Last edited:
"Blockbuster take" on the slowest, least cinematic alien weapon ever conceived?
No, it isn't. It was a slam designed to denigrate people who disagree with a point of view. What is the "objectively verifiable" truth regarding Discovery? That CBS says so? That is one point of view, but since art means different things to different people based on how they interpret it, by simply following CBS line you are depriving yourself of your own ability to find what it is to you.
I think people toss around "objectively verifiable" truth as a way to try and shut down anyone that disagrees with them.
I'll say again what I've said before numerous times: watch the show. If you think it fits in with the rest of Star Trek, then that is what you think based on what you've seen with your own two eyes. If you don't think it fits (I don't), then that is what you've think based on what you've seen with your own two eyes.
Some people think they should have called it Prometheus 2 and tied it far more closely to that film, instead of what it ended up being.
While you may argue that it's an example of the same phenomenon, it's not fine to introduce it here — unless said example can be shown to have some direct relation to a Star Trek story, character, plot point, etc. which is already under discussion in the thread. That is in no way the case here, and I don't see any way to make it relevant.
What said example was, in fact, was a swipe at a particular group of fans:
That's a put-down, and a none-too-veiled insinuation of inflexible stupidity to go with it.
And anyone who's been around this forum for any length of time will know without question that taking swipes at other fans is a thing I actively discourage. Just don't do it.
Like, not at all, @Red Panda .
In this forum, we talk about Star Trek. We may criticize opinions expressed, but we don't take shots at each other. And save the political topics for forums which are appropriate to discussion of same (i.e., not this forum.)
Similar threads
