Paramount Confirms TWO Star Trek films currently in the works!

[Garth Rockett]

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

When hyperbole is used to present an opposing viewpoint that has no relation to what is actually being presented, it seems to me the effect is to belittle the other viewpoint without having to actually engage it. I stand by my previous comment, and really have nothing further to add.

 

[Red Panda]

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

That's so long away. Will Paramount even be around still? Their own really wants it merged back with CBS. Like REALLY wants it.

 

[Christopher]

Will Paramount even be around still? Their own really wants it merged back with CBS.

It was Paramount before it split from CBS. The thing to remember is that we're talking about huge media conglomerates that own multiple different production and broadcasting entities. It used to be that there was a single company called Viacom that owned both Paramount's movie and TV production companies and the CBS network. Then it split apart, keeping its TV assets and renaming itself CBS Corporation while forming a new company that inherited the Viacom name and the Paramount Pictures movie studio. If CBS Corp and Viacom re-merged, they'd be a single conglomerate again, but presumably the movie studio Paramount Pictures and the TV production company CBS Studios, as well as the TV network also called CBS, would retain their individual names and identities. After all, both the Paramount and CBS names have a great deal of brand recognition and cachet, which is why the former Viacom renamed itself CBS in the first place, and why both the old and new Viacoms kept the Paramount name for the movie studio rather than renaming it Viacom Pictures or something.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That's so long away. Will Paramount even be around still? Their own really wants it merged back with CBS. Like REALLY wants it.

Even if they merged, it would take years until such a thing was worked out (see: Fox and Disney) and by then the films would have been made (or not)

 

[Lance]

The TMP novelization and Phase II series bible suggest that starships returning to spacedock from 5 year missions was rare, possibly unique. Kirk may not have been legendary during TOS, though his reputation may have already begun to build, but there's a clear inference from TMP onwards that Kirk, his crew and the Enterprise herself are revered as something pretty special.

The Kelvinverse movies basically bring the notion of 5 year missions being a huge and unique thing into canon, which isn't necessarily something TOS implied but isn't antiethical to the principal either.

 

[Christopher]

The TMP novelization and Phase II series bible suggest that starships returning to spacedock from 5 year missions was rare, possibly unique.

Which I've always found a rather ridiculous claim, and a feeble excuse to justify why Kirk was the one who got a TV series made about him instead of one of the other captains. (Recall that the TMP novelization was written by Roddenberry with the pretense that he was a 23rd-century producer who'd made an "inaccurately larger-than-life" dramatization of Kirk's adventures and promised to do a more accurate version this time, so as to justify the changes in the depiction of the universe between the show and the movie.) If such missions were consistently that dangerous, they'd stop doing them, at least until they designed much tougher ships with much better-trained crews.

Kirk may not have been legendary during TOS, though his reputation may have already begun to build, but there's a clear inference from TMP onwards that Kirk, his crew and the Enterprise herself are revered as something pretty special.

And I consider that unfortunate, that elevation of Kirk and his crew into galactic superheroes. That was never the intent of TOS. The whole point was to do a more grounded, naturalistic take on science fiction than we'd seen on TV before, to get away from cartoony, larger-than-life kids' shows and do science fiction as an adult drama. You see this especially in the early first season -- the crew aren't bombastic figures of legend, they're just professionals doing a job that happens to be in space. Kirk was meant to be an everyman -- a really smart and capable commander, yes, but also a flawed and vulnerable one who could make mistakes and beat himself up over them. It was those flaws and vulnerabilities, that intrinsic humanity, that made Kirk so much deeper and more worthwhile a protagonist than so many of his contemporaries on '60s TV. So putting him and his crew on pedestals, portraying them as unrealistically better than everyone else, is missing the point of what made them and the show so effective.

The Kelvinverse movies basically bring the notion of 5 year missions being a huge and unique thing into canon, which isn't necessarily something TOS implied but isn't antiethical to the principal either.

That's entirely different. What Into Darkness establishes is that 5-year exploration missions are a "new program," something that Starfleet hasn't done before, at least not recently -- which fits with what the previous film established about Starfleet having turned away from exploration in the decades since Nero's attack on the Kelvin.

 

[fireproof78]

That's entirely different. What Into Darkness establishes is that 5-year exploration missions are a "new program," something that Starfleet hasn't done before, at least not recently -- which fits with what the previous film established about Starfleet having turned away from exploration in the decades since Nero's attack on the Kelvin.

Giant enemy ship attacks out of nowhere after fighting a war with same enemy within recent memory? Can't imagine why.

 

[Khan 2.0]

The way the entire internet been going crazy over the return of Picard bet JJ and co wishing they had him in ST4 (maybe they'll finally slot in Shatner now instead)

 

[Lance]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your points @Christopher, just pointing out that the canon itself is the catalyst for all this. I think the exact words "the crew returned home to find themselves legends in their own lifetime" or something like it is used in the Phase II bible (and, by inference, background for what we actually get on screen in TMP). I actually agree that the 'normality' of the crew and their mission as simply one ship in a fleet of many -- never once is Enterprise spelled out as being particularly more special than any other Starship we see -- was a particular part of TOS, and although TNG attempted to return to that in some aspects in their early seasons, the implication by then 'in universe' was that the Enterprise name alone held a legacy that made it special. Which personally I find ridiculous, but there you go. (I'm sure there are precedents in real-life Navies. HMS Endeavor is one that conjures up such romantic imagery today, though in her day she was likely thought of a 'just another ship' in the fleet.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Giant enemy ship attacks out of nowhere after fighting a war with same enemy within recent memory? Can't imagine why.

Nobody knew it was a Romulan ship at the time, though.

 

[Malaika]

Reading some news about Discovery and all the retcons affecting Spock's character and his family, I can't help but feel amusement just thinking about certain trek fans who complained about the differences in kelvin trek, in spite of this being another reality, and they now have to rationalize a new show that is a prequel of tos and effectively changing things retroactively. Even funnier is seeing reboot haters who are endlessly nitpicking about JJ trek since 2009, now make up excuses for Discovery because they happen to like it in spite of the show pretty much doing everything they supposedly hated about JJ's trek, and more.

I really don't get some trek fans. JJ's trek had always been another reality separated from tos. The changes you see in Spock and the others are easy to rationalize with the changes happening in their life. If free will does exist, then people from other realities must be different if their experiences are even slightly different.
The reboot never did what Discovery is doing.

Ironically, it now seems like according to some fans it's this trek, thus the other reality, that has to be a carbon copy of tos and must be more stuck in the past, while Discovery, that is tos, actually is allowed to change history and use the most blatant retcons.

 

[Lance]

Discovery is effectively a reboot with the numbers filed off. There's a part of me that wonders if the only reason they didn't overtly make it a prequel to the Kelvinverse is because CBS and Paramount Movies are different beasts these days and cross pollination between them was a legal minefield. But most everything from aesthetics to character developments to the look of the Klingons could, rationally, have been precursors to the Kelvinverse, but not so easily to TOS and the others. The show runners could've easily have said 'Discovery is X years before Captain Kirk...' without being specific about which Captain Kirk they mean, lol.

That being said, I did recently get into a "robust discussion" with another fan about the Spock's family history thing, and he pulled out the defense that "even in canon we suddenly had Sybok appear out of nowhere", then after a horrified look he said, "Man, I never thought I'd evoke *anything* from Star Trek V as evidence to win an argument".

 

[Malaika]

I always had the idea that discovery was meant to be in the kelvin timeline but they can't use it. We probably will never hear about his sister in the movies for similar reasons.

I, for one, am more interested and excited about the reboot's differences than Discovery retcons. The characters have still potential, but tos is done and over for me as I accept the characters also being influenced by the time, and thus being contemporary to the 60s. The only way to fix some things and make them more relatable to our time is a reboot, with an alternate reality being a perfect pretext to go back and see how things could've been if the show wasn't made in the 60s. That way you can start fresh and add new layers to them, without the gymnastics of having to go back and retcon a previous established narrative.

Discovery should focus on its own characters instead of relying too much on Spock and altering his own story to ostensibly include a sister that didn't exist.
I too used Sybok to rationalize him having a secret sister, as it wasn't a big deal for me and I was even intrigued by the idea, but they obvioustly are adding retcons that are foundamentally bigger than what stv did. They are painting thrmselves into a corner now. DC Fontana must be livid! ^ She already despised the movies giving Spock a brother, I can't imagine what she thinks about Discovery now. For her, him being the only child of Sarek was an important, foundamental, aspect of Spock's character for very specific reasons. She ignored Sybok in her novels and, like Roddenberry, essentially decanonized stv.


I think there are many things you can add to canon but it's sort of like some bad karma for trek fans that after complaining about the reboot for years, they get discovery now that is everything they claimed to hate about JJ's trek but much, much, worse in those very aspects because JJ never changed the story, he just gave us another reality and a different version of the characters.


I have a feeling that instead of making reboot haters see things from a new, reasonable, perspective, thank to the comparison with Discovery too, and thus be more accepting of the kelvin timeline as its own thing, they may now demand this trek to be stuck in the past all the more. Irony is that this trek, that is another reality, is less allowed to change things than a show set in the tos reality that is pretty much messing up with established canon.

 

[Christopher]

Discovery is effectively a reboot with the numbers filed off.

So were TMP and TWOK, really (there were fans at the time who insisted they couldn't possibly be in the same reality as TOS because of all the changes), but people have had decades to get used to the differences and rationalize them in their minds. And so was TNG to start with; Roddenberry wanted to keep as far away as possible from TOS ideas and redo Trek in a new and improved way, but then he was succeeded by writers who were TOS fans and who chose to tie the shows together more directly.

The thing that needs to be understood about continuity is that it's not the sole, overriding parameter for analyzing a work of fiction; it's just one more story device that storytellers make up along with characters, plots, settings, and the rest. So who's telling the story ultimately matters more than what universe it pretends to be in. Any new version of a fictional premise by new creators is going to be a reinterpretation and a different take on things to some degree, whether it pretends to be in the same continuity or not.

But most everything from aesthetics to character developments to the look of the Klingons could, rationally, have been precursors to the Kelvinverse, but not so easily to TOS and the others.

Not precursors, since they're more or less simultaneous. Discovery season 1 takes place in 2256-7, which is during the first Kelvin movie, specifically in the gap between Kirk joining the Academy (2255) and the main body of the film (2258). Which is exactly why they can't be in the same continuity -- DSC has the Enterprise already in service a year or two before it's launched in Kelvin, and DSC has a Klingon war in 2256-7 when Into Darkness in 2259 portrays a Klingon war as something that Admiral Marcus thinks is likely but that clearly hasn't happened yet.

The aesthetics are similar because they hired some of the same designers and are making it for the tastes of the same generation of viewers. That's all. It doesn't make sense to base perceptions of continuity on artistic style. John Byrne's Superman comics have the same aesthetic as his X-Men comics, but they're certainly not in the same universe.

 

[fireproof78]

Nobody knew it was a Romulan ship at the time, though.

They figured it out before Kirk was in the Academy, as Pike had written his dissertation on it, and Kirk remarks that "The Romulans were in a ship, one giant ship" (or something to that effect).

Regardless, a giant ship attacking, close to the Neutral Zone, would provoke some sort of response in Starfleet's attitude.

 

[pst]

I think there are many things you can add to canon but it's sort of like some bad karma for trek fans that after complaining about the reboot for years, they get discovery now that is everything they claimed to hate about JJ's trek but much, much, worse in those very aspects because JJ never changed the story, he just gave us another reality and a different version of the characters.


I have a feeling that instead of making reboot haters see things from a new, reasonable, perspective, thank to the comparison with Discovery too, and thus be more accepting of the kelvin timeline as its own thing, they may now demand this trek to be stuck in the past all the more. Irony is that this trek, that is another reality, is less allowed to change things than a show set in the tos reality that is pretty much messing up with established canon.

it's also pretty hilarious that the kelvin timeline films look fairly tame next to the radical changes discovery made to the franchise. imagine the reaction if abrams had put klingon tits or the word "fuck" in one of his films.

 

[fireproof78]

it's also pretty hilarious that the kelvin timeline films look fairly tame next to the radical changes discovery made to the franchise. imagine the reaction if abrams had put klingon tits or the word "fuck" in one of his films.

He would be accuse of destroying the franchise and ruining childhoods. Oh, wait. He already got that.

Besides, I imagine Tarantino will be the one to do that.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Besides, I imagine Tarantino will be the one to do that.

I've seen people say Tarantino Trek will be the death knell of the franchise. I say, if that's true: Let it die in a blaze of glory! Bring it on.

 

[Christopher]

I've seen people say Tarantino Trek will be the death knell of the franchise.

People have said that about every new Trek project. People in general are far too quick to say that X will be the death knell of Y. People are just morbid.

 

[pst]

People have said that about every new Trek project. People in general are far too quick to say that X will be the death knell of Y. People are just morbid.

way too morbid. i prefer they use rape imagery.