WandaVision Director Matt Shakman to helm next Trek movie
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
I don't. I think there is plenty of evidence that it can work just fine. It's all in how it is handled, as evidenced by, well, all the different movies.
Otherwise, given some really poor outings on the TV front you have to wonder if Trek is small screen material.
I would really love an Interstellar type of Star Trek movie.
I think Star Trek may be a little too far gone to do something like that though. And it's probably been a little too far gone to do something like that since "Where No Man Has Gone Before."
If ViacomCBS were to ever totally reboot Star Trek, then a hard science fiction route is how I would absolutely love for them to go. Or my favorite thing, just do another timeline. Just do another timeline and do Star Trek as hard science fiction in that one.
With SpaceX, and the Artemis program, and going to Mars... it wouldn't be a horrible thing to do a new iteration of Star Trek as hard science fiction. Because someone is going to most likely try and catch onto that zeitgeist, if this new era in space exploration becomes a thing.
Ronald D. Moore is kind of doing it in a way at Apple TV with For All Mankind. It's about the space race, of course, and season one started in '69. Season two jumped to '82. I believe season three is jumping to '94. And he has a seven-year show bible.
It's alt-history, of course, so the technological advancements are a little bit more accelerated than in reality (example: in season one we established a moon base in '73), the show is grounded though. Some fun stuff is season two is John Lennon is never assassinated and Regan is elected in '76. And I believe the plan is as it gets further along, more and more science fiction elements will get introduced. Of course, I have no idea what the ultimate end goal is, but we'll see.
Anyway, I suppose you could do an Interstellar type of thing in the Kelvin timeline or in the Prime timeline. And instead of doing a movie or show with your normal type of Star Trek ship, which seems to be kind of an all-purpose type of thing. Do a show or movie (or both; movie leading into a show) where it's literally about a research vessel and it's crew, or about a science vessel and it's crew. And so you can really focus the scope that way.
Wandavision is somewhat cerebral but that really doesn't matter. The issue fans will have, just like with the Bad Robot movies, is that the script will have the crew retracing the steps of the prime universe TOS crew. That will lead to comparisons and a lot of pouting.
Furthermore, I don't know what Paramount expects? Star Trek is not going to be a box office juggernaut. Especially with the amount of money they spent on those 3 films.
Furthermore, I don't know what Paramount expects? Star Trek is not going to be a box office juggernaut. Especially with the amount of money they spent on those 3 films.
...and resurrect the dead. Are they running tests with blood samples from the frozen augments? By Beyond it's possible every one's immortal (ignoring the fact that the transporters should already have made them all immortal).
I agree that ID was profoundly dumb...but I'm confused by how you continue to mix up tribbles and augments. They really look nothing alike...
Well, not never...
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
[Pics posted as embedded images should be hosted on web space registered to poster. - M']
The line of silliness is definitely subjective but it still amazes me where that line gets drawn for a lot of people. Human looking aliens? Totally fine. Blood based therapies? Not fine...
Returning some one from the dead is a hell of a "therapy".
Last edited by a moderator:
Spared no expense.
The technology has been outlawed since 1996, as per DS9. So no immortals.
I love Star Trek in the movies. I really grew up on the Star Trek TOS films, and those were massive events in my life. I loved when Trek returned to the theaters in style back in May of 2009. But then, Paramount dropped the ball on the momentum and popularity they had achieved with that first film. Yes, ID was successful, but it could have been so much more, and BEY (which I personally liked) was a total dud at the box office.
The movie franchise was so dreadfully mis-managed, that I'm honestly hopeful that they don't make a new film right now...at least not without a fully developed strategic vision...because I'd rather play the long game. I don't want to see a failure kill the films for the next 15 years. I'd rather see them take the time and do it right, with a long-term vision attached to it.
So, yeah.....I feel horrible saying it, but this doesn't excite me at all.
The movie franchise was so dreadfully mis-managed, that I'm honestly hopeful that they don't make a new film right now...at least not without a fully developed strategic vision...because I'd rather play the long game. I don't want to see a failure kill the films for the next 15 years. I'd rather see them take the time and do it right, with a long-term vision attached to it.
So, yeah.....I feel horrible saying it, but this doesn't excite me at all.
But, it was announced by a reliable reporter! How dare you?
I agree about Trek films being Events in my life. But, I disagree about Beyond in the "total dud" sense, insofar as 343 million is a respectable number for a non-tentpole film. The problem was budgeting it at 185 million! I like a big Trek film, sure, but no matter how much I like Beyond, it certainly didn't feel like a tentpole. It felt... like a 60 million dollar movie at most, which is a fine thing to be, but they should have made a 60 million dollar movie in that case, and then been happy with 343 million in box office. (Not to mention that they surely spent (wasted) approximately 185 million on marketing.) Anyways, not to harp on this little bit of a point too much, it just gets my goat when people say things of this ilk, like "TOS was made so cheap with its cardboard sets" and just... that ain't true in the slightest, and neither was Beyond a total dud at the box office, it only "failed" by way of absurd expectations.
Last edited:
Current Star Trek in a nutshell.
But expectations are the only things that matter when a studio is deciding whether or not to further invest in a film franchise. So, as unfortunate as it is, for all intents and purposes, the film was a failure.
And if they spent 180M on marketing for this film, I sure as heck didn’t see it. The BEY marketing campaign was pathetic, especially considering that it was the 50th anniversary of the franchise. It was a good film and it deserved better.
A "total dud" wouldn't have made back its budget. A failure to some degree, yes, but not a dud.
I wonder if Nemesis had turned a profit, yet?
Probably not even close. With the usual guess on the cost of marketing, it's probably still at negative 50 million or so... yikes.
I disagree. Spock had a more legitimate reason, in story, than Kirk did, in story in WOK, for the scream.
Nearly 30 million of that, according to reports from Credible Reporter (patent pending
for @fireproof78 ), was carried over from the aborted Orci project, to be fair.So did McCoy go to court or court martial between Into Darkness and Beyond? That wasn't in the comics...
Hard disagree. Kirk's impotent scream through the communicator to actual Khan >>>>>>>>>>> Spock's cliché "you killed my friend" Mendoza!!!!!! scream.
Both screams are rather dumb. ID is marginally better.
Wonder what the budget for Orcis ST3 would've been , probably similar to ST09 140-150m (Paramount cant have been too happy at IDs 190m budget and mustve wanted the 3rd to cost more in line with ST09) so had it done about the same as BEY 350m mighve been ok to press on with a ST4 for 2018-19Nearly 30 million of that, according to reports from Credible Reporter (patent pending
Last edited:
Similar threads
