Star Trek 4 Reportedly Shelved

I know.

 

I never assume who owns what edition and which version they've seen.

 

I’ll always assume Maurice exclusively watches the DE.

 

I know you have to look the other way a lot in science fiction, but it's the things that makes you start asking questions you have to be careful about. None of these things are enough to destroy the franchise, but it could be just enough either mess with a storyline or turn viewers (movie goers) off.

I like the origin part of trek 09, but I wonder if they could have time jumped or showed them gradually getting their positions. Or have the crew constantly monitored and scrutinized by some skeptical jerky review board because it thinks they're too young and not experienced enough. In other words, make it a constant issue. They're constantly trying to to prove themselves.

The way the script played, everything about the cadet to captain, and having a crew full of recent cadets thing seemed normal--which seemed kind of odd.


Without the 4th movie, they'll leave a lot hanging. We see him meet Carol Marcus but no follow up now. Only a mention of the Harry Mudd incident. Not much of the famous antagonism between Spock and McCoy. The feeling was they were supposed to grow into the iconic characters from TOS.

Like I said IMO, everything was rushed, too much skipped over and too much was left out.
It feels like an awkward send off to be shelved right now.

 

Well, having some never-before-seen engineering officer may have been more realistic, but this way Chekov gets to do more. They did at least say he'd been shadowing Mr Scott and training under him, and Anton was adorable as in-way-over-his-head Chekov.

 

That would be nice, but we definitely seen Starfleet has an odd promotion track. I do think the pacing could be improved.

I don't think Kirk prompted Chekov because he was the best fit. I think he promoted him because he was a yes man on Kirk's revenge train.

Yes, because the Starfleet is exactly like the military?

/runsaway

 

As much as I enjoyed 09, that's sort of the problem inherent to an origin movie that doesn't really need to be told. They either have to gloss over a lot (ie: time jump), or rush through events quickly to get from 0 to 1, and end up seeming somewhat unrealistic. SOLO* faced the time jump problem, but because it's never made clear how much time is passing during each jump (and if you're not paying attention you may not even realize a jump occurred), you wind up feeling like everything took place over the span of 6 months, making it feel just as unrealistic.

*I actually enjoy Solo, and think it's a pretty good comparison to 09. I think the characters weren't as strong in Solo than in 09, but the action and pacing were a lot better.

 

Not to mention a cute meta callback to where Prime Chekov supposedly was back when our classic heroes first met Khan...

 

It had great reviews and good fan feedback, but I will say that the people who hated it were very very vocal about it while people who liked it just liked it. I like the movie, I think it had problems (why the khan shit?!), but it is still solid.

 

Beyond was a better film than Into Darkness but as has been stated many times through the forum, it was kinda like a glorified TV episode, sort of a better Insurrection. The stakes didn't feel high despite the destruction of the Enterprise and the contrived loss of most/all of the crew beyond the leads (something that I feel spoke poorly of Kirk's competence... Look how much crap Troi got for crashing the Enterprise-D). Maybe if they executed the script for Trek 4 with Hemsworth in the 3rd rather than the 4th film it would have helped bookend things better, but there just wasn't a lot of character arc stuff in Beyond and so it felt disconnected and unnecessary.

 

It was The Last Jedi before The Last Jedi. Ultra devisive, you either loved it or took it as some kind of personal insult.

I think Beyond suffered mostly because it simply wasn't as "must see" and was released in an ultra-cluttered year for blockbuster movies. Also, marketing was nonexistant.

 

its kind of similar to the recent Apes movies (don't think there is to be another?,mainly due to the last one underperforming like Beyond) so we're left to assume that it will vaguely lead into the original 1968 Apes (although it dosnt really sync up chronologically) as with JJtrek..they'll continue to grow into TOS characters and have the remaining episode adventures and movies (even TWOK if someone presses the defrost button)

 

About the Mudd Incident, that was depicted in the prequel Into Darkness comic "Countdown to Darkness."

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Countdown_to_Darkness
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Mudd_(Bajoran)

I agree with you that the original 2009 film rushed things too much. At times the Kelvin films did some nice tweaking of what came before to show this was an alternate reality, but at other times, they didn't or didn't go far enough. I think it was rushed to have Kirk as captain by the end of the first film, but I get why they did that. They wanted the original crew in place, even if it was too fast (same goes for some of the others, except for maybe Scotty, Sulu, and Spock). I wish they had just had Kirk as first officer under Pike by the end of the film, and Kirk could assume command in the second film.

Even if we had gotten a fourth film I don't know if they would have returned to the Carol Marcus-Kirk relationship because they didn't in Beyond. I wish they had kept Carol as a member of the crew after Into Darkness, another tweak, but they didn't, for whatever reason.

 

Funnily enough in the recent Kelvin art book in the Beyond section theres a manip of Alice Eve in a Beyond field jacket uniform (like Kirk/Chekov wore) so maybe she was originally supposed to feature in Beyond?

 

She was in the Bob Orci version and earliest versions of the Pegg/Jung story.

 

Ignoring Carol is part of ignoring stid (=the other movies) because this team was being passive aggressive about the work done by the original team (which backfired, IMO).

I don't find it hard to believe why she wasn't in the movie. They probably didn't know what to do with her and she'd probably get sidelined like Sulu, Chekov and to a lesser extend, Uhura. Or make them get sidelined even more because instead of reducing the main guys ( and Scotty and Mccoy) screentime to make room for her, they'd only further reduce the other regular characters that already get so little.
And I mean, even Spock was sidelined, so how can you guys expect them to give Carol a story and screentime in that movie when they barely did anything with the main cast?
You can argue she didn't need to have a big role because she is a secondary character, that they could give her a cameo.. but even a cameo isn't always easy to write and insert.

However, I also think that this team essentially replaced her with Jaylah, following the 'rule' you add a new character every movie, just like if we were to get more movies, Jaylah would most likely get replaced by another secondary female/original character that team wants to have in the movie in a new role.
It might be a bit lame but there is a logic to it too, if you will, because the movies already have to include a main cast of several characters so the next team isn't going to want to keep all the secondary characters added by the previous one too because they are going to want to add their own new characters. In this case, Pegg&Co wanted Jaylah while the director of the fourth movie was rumored wanting to add 3 new female characters (a villain, an ally, an older lady) and she'd probably give Jaylah up.

 

I don't, nor do i think audiences really, care about stakes being as high. Deadpool was about a guy saving his girlfriend. Good movie, loads of money. John Wick was relatively low stakes, and it's a GREAT movie that is pretty much universally loved by those who saw it. Pretty much all of the billion dollar Fast and The Furious movies are pretty low stakes all things considered.

Beyond was an excellent movie, with great characters, an engaging story, and great action. As others have said, it was a combination of fatigue over STID and bad marketing. I tend not to blame a crowded summer: the week before saw the release of Ghostbusters, a total bomb, and two weeks later saw Bourne 5 (a middling success). With a strong marketing campaign it could have been a big hit financially. Not sure why they decided not to promote it.