Paramount Confirms TWO Star Trek films currently in the works!

[Christopher]

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?

The counterargument there is the existence of spinoffs. Lots of successful shows spin off additional shows about other characters having their own separate adventures at the same time. TNG produced DS9 and VGR. The Six Million Dollar Man spun off The Bionic Woman. Hercules spun off Xena -- and was overshadowed by it. Law and Order and CSI each had multiple spinoffs. Doctor Who had Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures, etc. Arrow has spawned a whole universe of superhero shows.

After all, it's not like this is really happening in some parallel reality and we're just observing it. What happens in a fictional universe is what the writers make up. So there are as many equally interesting, equally accomplished casts of characters to tell stories about as there are writers willing/getting paid to tell them. The only reason that Kirk is the only 23rd-century captain anyone in later shows talks about is because he was the only one who had his own series. But I guarantee you that any future Prime-universe shows set post-TOS are going to mention the Shenzhou and the Discovery alongside the Enterprise as important 23rd-century ships, because they're now there to be talked about.

 

[Damian]

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.

Just because Kirk was a legend does not mean there weren't other great Captains. I think what they were trying to portray was that Kirk was that rare breed of legendary captains. I would say the same about Picard and Sisko, and even Janeway and Archer. And yes, there are probably others. Captain Kirk being an icon in Starfleet does not exclude others. Some may even argue Picard is more iconic (I sort of think of them in equal stature overall, both have their strengths..but they are different strengths). But I wouldn't assume any captain was great either. There were probably some average Captains, Captains that got the job done but otherwise did not distinguish themselves. Captain Esteban of the Grissom strikes me as such a type. Someone that was adequate to the job but not someone that is going to make history.

And I'm not sure I agree it's a fannish point of view. Captain Kirk was mentioned a couple times in later series and I think it was pretty clear, at least to me, that he was someone other captains looked up to. It doesn't mean there weren't others but I think he was in a special class of Captains.

When he took command....yes. I'd agree he wasn't yet a legendary captain. Absolutely. He had to earn that distinction during his missions. We've been told he was the youngest captain at the time so he must have distinguished himself as he climbed the ranks as a superior officer. He wouldn't have been made Captain so young otherwise. But I'm thinking of his career up to the point of Generations. I think it'd be fair to say he was one of the great captains.

 

[Damian]

So, in essence, I thought Kirk was an iconic Captain because he not only got the job done, he went over and above the call of duty on multiple occasions. He made history on numerous occasions. I don't think you could say that about every Captain. They were probably all (or mostly all) good, trustworthy officers. But who would you rather have as your commander on a dangerous, risky mission with the highest stakes. Someone like Captain Kirk (or Picard to name drop someone else who I'd think of in that class), or someone like Captain Esteban?

 

[Christopher]

And I'm not sure I agree it's a fannish point of view. Captain Kirk was mentioned a couple times in later series and I think it was pretty clear, at least to me, that he was someone other captains looked up to.

But that practice didn't start until fans like Ron Moore actually became writers on the show. In "The Naked Now," when the computer search turned up Kirk's Enterprise, the characters didn't react to Kirk's name as if there were anything special about it. Sure, Riker remembered a detail that let them connect their situation to the events of "The Naked Time," but that was because he'd been reading a history of all ships named Enterprise, not because he was a hero-worshipper of James T. Kirk specifically. For that matter, the only other mentions of Kirk in TNG were made by Spock in "Unification" and Scotty in "Relics," unless you count Riker's "Kirk Epsilon" defense pattern in Nemesis. We don't get depictions of Kirk's missions as being well-known to 24th-century officers until DS9: "Crossover" and "Trials and Tribble-ations." (Worf mentions Kirk on Organia in "The Sword of Kahless," but in the context of his hero worship for Kor.) And he's only brought up a few times in VGR -- in "Flashback," of course (but more in the context of being a contemporary and colleague of Captain Sulu), in "Concerning Flight" (in reference to his claim of meeting Leonardo da Vinci, i.e. Flint), in "Q2" when Icheb does a report on him ("one of the greatest chapters in Starfleet history"), and in "Friendship One" when an admiral says Janeway's made more first contacts than any captain since Kirk. So there's a fairly steady escalation over the years -- first Kirk is just a past captain who happens to come up very rarely when he's relevant, then he's a well-known figure whose missions are studied at the Academy, and finally he's this overarchingly great figure described in superlatives. The more the shows went on, the more they came to be written by Trek fans, and the more fannish and hagiographic their mentions of Kirk became.

It doesn't mean there weren't others but I think he was in a special class of Captains.

Yes, but my point is, there should be others, and it's annoying that the later shows never mention any of the others. It makes the universe feel smaller and less convincing if it only ever references the stuff we've seen onscreen. Including references to things we haven't seen makes the universe feel more real, like we're only seeing a limited part of something much bigger.

 

[Rahul]

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.

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.

The thing is: It's not entirely seperated. It's still one IP. Paramount only has the rights to make films. CBS still owns Star Trek. All of it. A bit like the MARVEL movie rights entanglement, where Marvel still owns Hulk, but Paramount had the solo movie rights and still has the distribution rights. Which means neither party can do a solo Hulk movie on their own without input from the other company. Even Fox wasn't allowed to change the powers of the mutants from the comicbooks in their X-Men movies without approval from Marvel (Marvel "swapped" the rights for them changing Negasonic Teenage Warheads' powers from the comics in Deadpool for using Ego the living planet, to which Fox had the movie rights, in GotG 2).

Whatever agreement Paramount had with Bad Robot for rebooting Star Trek - CBS was part of that. That is why, for as long as their original agreement over three movies went, CBS wasn't allowed to put out a television show on their own during that time. In exchange their property (and merchandise rights) grew massively without them having to pay a single penny for it.

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.

Absolutely! But now CBS is not bound by them anymore and free to do with television Trek whatever they want - which is what gave us DIS. Doesn't change the fact that originally CBS was part of the Kelvin timeline reboot agreement, and any new show during that timeframe would have needed to be a Kelvin timeline show.

 

[Damian]

Yes, but my point is, there should be others, and it's annoying that the later shows never mention any of the others. It makes the universe feel smaller and less convincing if it only ever references the stuff we've seen onscreen. Including references to things we haven't seen makes the universe feel more real, like we're only seeing a limited part of something much bigger.

I don't know. I think there have been numerous mentions of other names thrown out, some of which we never have seen. We don't necessarily remember all the mentions because we've never seen those other people. But there are times a character will mention so and so who did something significant, or was some sort of mentor and we've never seen them.

We remember Kirk's name obviously because he was a main character of the original series. That's going to ring a bell. I don't think it was ever intended that he was alone in that category, but at the same time I do think he was still in a special category of Captains. That not every Captain was as historically significant.

 

[Damian]

Whatever agreement Paramount had with Bad Robot for rebooting Star Trek - CBS was part of that. That is why, for as long as their original agreement over three movies went, CBS wasn't allowed to put out a television show on their own during that time.

Yes CBS does own the whole enchilada, Paramount only has the rights to make the movies (so they couldn't make their own TV show). But I don't think I've ever seen it that CBS was forbidden from making a show until now. I think they made a conscious decision not to make a show until they saw how the Abrams movies played out but that's not the same thing.

 

[Rahul]

Yes CBS does own the whole enchilada, Paramount only has the rights to make the movies (so they couldn't make their own TV show). But I don't think I've ever seen it that CBS was forbidden from making a show until now. I think they made a conscious decision not to make a show until they saw how the Abrams movies played out but that's not the same thing.

They admitted publicly they had to wait with debuting their new show unill a certain time after "Beyond" was in cinemas. To "avoid brand confusion". That's nothing they did voluntarily to help another company. They were contractually obligated to do so.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know. I think there have been numerous mentions of other names thrown out, some of which we never have seen.

I can't recall any instance of a TNG-era character talking about any 23rd-century Starfleet captain other than Kirk, Spock, or Sulu.

We remember Kirk's name obviously because he was a main character of the original series. That's going to ring a bell. I don't think it was ever intended that he was alone in that category, but at the same time I do think he was still in a special category of Captains. That not every Captain was as historically significant.

I just think it's contradictory that Kirk considered Garth the greatest of all Starfleet captains -- whose missions were required reading at the Academy, so it wasn't just Kirk's personal opinion -- yet nobody else ever talks about him again. That undermines the credibility of the worldbuilding. Sure, Garth fell from grace, but that was due to a mental illness that resulted from a severe injury and that he was eventually cured of, so I doubt the enlightened Federation would hold that against him and expunge his name from the history books. Certainly in that Discovery episode where Saru asked the computer for a list of great captains, Garth's name should have been on it (since that was a few years after Kirk's Academy tenure and a decade or so before Garth's accident). And it would've been nice if it had included at least one captain we hadn't already heard of.

 

[Damian]

I just think it's contradictory that Kirk considered Garth the greatest of all Starfleet captains -- whose missions were required reading at the Academy, so it wasn't just Kirk's personal opinion -- yet nobody else ever talks about him again.

I was mainly talking about the characters mentioning people they looked up to, sometimes throwing out names that I've never heard of, but no, I don't think they were from history necessarily, mostly within their time frame.

I just think it's contradictory that Kirk considered Garth the greatest of all Starfleet captains -- whose missions were required reading at the Academy, so it wasn't just Kirk's personal opinion -- yet nobody else ever talks about him again.

I can't argue with you there. I think it's always nice for later shows to throw in those sorts of Easter eggs. They could probably even feature Captain Garth if they wanted to. I don't recall but at that point in Star Trek history is he still in Starfleet, or is this the period after his injury.

 

[Christopher]

I don't recall but at that point in Star Trek history is he still in Starfleet, or is this the period after his injury.

"Whom Gods Destroy" indicated that Garth's accident had been fairly recent, so it's still more than a decade in Discovery's future, as I already said.

 

[Garth Rockett]

The counterargument there is the existence of spinoffs.

That's a retrospective view. At the time Star Trek was created, there was no thought given to the possibility of spinoffs, the effort was to create one successful show. And my argument is, if you are trying to establish an adventure show that you want to be a success, you aren't going to create a show where the hero is just as good as everyone else with the same job he has. That doesn't mean there aren't others that are great - TOS made that point as well. But if you're only going to do one show, which is all that was envisioned at the time, you're going to do it about someone who's one of the very best.

And TOS makes that point, as well. The very fact that Kirk commands a Constitution-class starship sets him apart from most men, and in Court-Martial when Cogley makes a point of having Kirk's awards read, the clear message is that Kirk is an exceptionally decorated officer. Also, in Amok Time Kirk notes that Spock has been called the best first officer in the fleet. So TOS itself leads us to believe there is something special about this crew.

 

[Christopher]

That's a retrospective view. At the time Star Trek was created, there was no thought given to the possibility of spinoffs, the effort was to create one successful show.

What?? I wasn't talking solely about Star Trek. I was saying that there are many, many examples -- including ones older than Star Trek -- of fictional universes that tell stories about multiple casts of characters operating at the same time. The creators of the first series in those universes weren't thinking of spinoffs to start with either, but that didn't preclude spinoffs from happening later, and thus it didn't preclude the possibility of other, contemporary heroes being just as impressive as the original ones.

Like I said, arguments that assume writers and filmmakers are trapped by the state of affairs within a fictional universe are getting it backward. The writers and filmmakers create the state of affairs, and that means they're free to change it to suit their needs. Even if they start off presenting one hero or team as the best in the world/galaxy, once they decide to do a spinoff, nothing prevents them from changing that and saying there's now another hero or team who's just as good as the first.

And TOS makes that point, as well. The very fact that Kirk commands a Constitution-class starship sets him apart from most men, and in Court-Martial when Cogley makes a point of having Kirk's awards read, the clear message is that Kirk is an exceptionally decorated officer.

Yes, but it's one of 12 ships of that class. It stands to reason that he's one of an exceptional class of captains. It is utterly nonsensical to insist that the other 11 captains were a bunch of worthless losers. (Even if TOS did often portray it that way by having them always get killed or turn out evil whenever they showed up.)

Frankly, it's inimical to the core values of Star Trek to insist that only one person or one crew should be elevated and sanctified as uniquely special and better than everyone else. That kind of elitism is contrary to the egalitarian values that ST is supposed to stand for. That's why I hate the idea that the Enterprise is the only ship that matters. It shouldn't be. Starfleet should be full of ships whose crews are equally great at their jobs, equally important to expanding knowledge and protecting the Federation. It would be absurdly inefficient to cram all the best people onto one ship and let every other ship be crewed by less capable officers. That would be an incredibly stupid and self-defeating way to run a fleet. If Starfleet noticed that all its best people were on a single ship, they'd probably insist that those people be transferred to other ships posthaste, both to make those other ships more effective and to make sure that all the best people weren't destroyed all at once if something happened to that first ship.

 

[Damian]

"Whom Gods Destroy" indicated that Garth's accident had been fairly recent, so it's still more than a decade in Discovery's future, as I already said.

Oops. I see that now. I missed that part of your earlier comment. So he could conceivably show up on Discovery if someone wanted to feature him at some point.

That's a retrospective view. At the time Star Trek was created, there was no thought given to the possibility of spinoffs, the effort was to create one successful show. And my argument is, if you are trying to establish an adventure show that you want to be a success, you aren't going to create a show where the hero is just as good as everyone else with the same job he has. That doesn't mean there aren't others that are great - TOS made that point as well. But if you're only going to do one show, which is all that was envisioned at the time, you're going to do it about someone who's one of the very best.

And TOS makes that point, as well. The very fact that Kirk commands a Constitution-class starship sets him apart from most men, and in Court-Martial when Cogley makes a point of having Kirk's awards read, the clear message is that Kirk is an exceptionally decorated officer. Also, in Amok Time Kirk notes that Spock has been called the best first officer in the fleet. So TOS itself leads us to believe there is something special about this crew.

Right. That's the feeling I got when I watched Star Trek, even the original series run, that Kirk was a gifted individual. I get what Christopher is saying. That there are probably other gifted officers in Starfleet. And it wouldn't hurt for the later shows to name drop some of them where appropriate (or even just create some names). But I actually wouldn't go too crazy. There's nothing wrong with Kirk being in a small class of especially gifted officers either. I can buy that the officers given command of the 12 Constitution class ships are gifted and worthy captains at the time. But I can buy that Kirk was especially gifted. That he had unique skills that maybe took him a step higher.

 

[Damian]

It is utterly nonsensical to insist that the other 11 captains were a bunch of worthless losers. (Even if TOS did often portray it that way by having them always get killed or turn out evil whenever they showed up.)

Well, that's true enough. In Commodore Decker's case I can sympathize. He lost his entire crew to a planet killing monster. And the Enterprise would have eventually suffered the same fate or at the very least failed to stop it had Decker not inadvertently provide a solution by his death. I'm sure Kirk would have been devastated if his entire crew perished.

Captain Tracey, yeah, not sure how he made it past the psyche boards with his visions of Godhood. But hey, no one's perfect I guess (you'd think Dr Vangelder being a psychiatrist could have helped him with those issues, being that he obviously must have been his twin brother--if you can't turn to family, who can you turn to). .

The Intrepid is an example of why you shouldn't have one species run the entire ship. A little diversity might have helped them there.

The Excalibur, well that was M-5's fault. Not sure their captain could have foreseen M-5 going crazy.

Commodore Leslie fared out ok, and he was someone Kirk looked up to.

Kirk was one of the few captains to get his ship home successfully. Sometimes he got lucky, but sometimes he had that special intuition that helped him find a solution to many of his problems.

 

[Christopher]

Oops. I see that now. I missed that part of your earlier comment. So he could conceivably show up on Discovery if someone wanted to feature him at some point.

It would be great to see Garth in his prime, before his madness -- to see the great captain that Kirk looked up to as a role model.

I get what Christopher is saying. That there are probably other gifted officers in Starfleet. And it wouldn't hurt for the later shows to name drop some of them where appropriate (or even just create some names). But I actually wouldn't go too crazy. There's nothing wrong with Kirk being in a small class of especially gifted officers either. I can buy that the officers given command of the 12 Constitution class ships are gifted and worthy captains at the time. But I can buy that Kirk was especially gifted. That he had unique skills that maybe took him a step higher.

Like I said, it's more about creating a sense of a larger universe. Yes, Kirk's a great guy and all that, but that isn't the point. The point is that if the characters in a universe never mention anything beyond what we've already seen in earlier stories, it exposes the fact that it's all made up, that there's no larger reality beyond the stories themselves. It makes the fictional world feel finite and artificial. You do a better job of creating verisimilitude if you can make it feel like there's a larger, fuller reality beyond what we see.

 

[Garth Rockett]

What?? I wasn't talking solely about Star Trek. I was saying that there are many, many examples -- including ones older than Star Trek -- of fictional universes that tell stories about multiple casts of characters operating at the same time. The creators of the first series in those universes weren't thinking of spinoffs to start with either, but that didn't preclude spinoffs from happening later, and thus it didn't preclude the possibility of other, contemporary heroes being just as impressive as the original ones.

Of course not. I have said many times that we should assume there were many other excellent captains. That doesn't mean Kirk wasn't the best. I'll bring back a baseball analogy. If I say Willie Mays was the best ballplayer of the 50's and 60's, that does not mean that Aaron, Mantle and Clemente were not also all-time greats. Just that Mays was better. So if I'm going to start with telling the story of one great player, I'm going to start with Mays.

Yes, but it's one of 12 ships of that class. It stands to reason that he's one of an exceptional class of captains. It is utterly nonsensical to insist that the other 11 captains were a bunch of worthless losers.

This is one of the most blatant strawmans I've ever seen around here. No one has said anything close to that, and you're doing us a disservice if you can't engage the discussion in an intellectually honest manner.

 

[Christopher]

Of course not. I have said many times that we should assume there were many other excellent captains. That doesn't mean Kirk wasn't the best.

Which, again, is not my point at all. I'm not interested in arguing who was "the best" in an imaginary universe, because, well, they're all imaginary. I'm talking about the creative process and how you give your universe verisimilitude. I'm talking about how to approach your creation as a writer instead of as a fan, about understanding that just throwing in loving references to your favorite characters and episodes is not enough for plausible worldbuilding. If you want your world to be convincing, you should give your audience the sense that there's more to it than just the stories we've seen.

This is one of the most blatant strawmans I've ever seen around here. No one has said anything close to that, and you're doing us a disservice if you can't engage the discussion in an intellectually honest manner.

What???? I engaged in a bit of snarky hyperbole for effect, that's all. Sarcasm is not "intellectual dishonesty."

 

[pst]

so hey about that whole two star trek films in the works: Simon Pegg Suggests Tarantino’s STAR TREK Could Be Five or Six Years Away

seen a lot of handwringing about this online, but this sounds about right to me. star trek 4 isn't even likely to come out until 2020.

 

[F. King Daniel]

so hey about that whole two star trek films in the works: Simon Pegg Suggests Tarantino’s STAR TREK Could Be Five or Six Years Away

seen a lot of handwringing about this online, but this sounds about right to me. star trek 4 isn't even likely to come out until 2020.

Pretty much what I expected, based on Paramount's timescale for Trek movies thus far.