Pretty much sums it up.I came upon this on Facebook and it's the most true thing ever:
Should Star Trek 4 have a villain? If yes, what should this villain's motives be?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
For my part, I'd like to see an adaptation of this novel by David Gerrold; if not possible, maybe another script (I'd suggest merging the next Kelvinverse movie script with what Quentin Tarantino wants to do, rather than having two separate Star Trek movies.)
Oh, I said years ago that any new incarnation of Trek is pretty much a Kobayashi Maru in terms of trying to please the fans.
The cancelled SJ Clarkson Star Trek 4 project was to have Danai Gurira as the villain. So it almost happened.
Talosians.
Legion was essentially a showreel for Noah to demonstrate how he could do cerebral Trek. All the visual potential of illusions, handled in a similar way to Legion, would be something unique for the Trek films. Star Trek meets Inception.
Legion was essentially a showreel for Noah to demonstrate how he could do cerebral Trek. All the visual potential of illusions, handled in a similar way to Legion, would be something unique for the Trek films. Star Trek meets Inception.
I'll second talking to David Gerrold about that first idea. Gladly.
The only problem with this is that Gerrold is pissed off at CBS Studios and Paramount for being passed over for an invite to the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery, so he might not want Bad Robot, Skydance, and Paramount to get ahold of said novel to adapt it for the big screen (he did allow Cawley Entertainment Company to adapt a story of his originally intended for TNG as an episode of CEC's Star Trek Phase II web series.)
Last edited:
Gerrold probably burned a lot of bridges with his continued public support of Axanar... which of course would make it hilarious if CBS or Paramount made profit off his novel without his permission.
That said, modern Trek novels are work-for-hire and 100% owned by CBS, they can use stories and characters without compensating the writers if they wish. I'm curious if that's the case for novels as far back as the 70's.
That said, modern Trek novels are work-for-hire and 100% owned by CBS, they can use stories and characters without compensating the writers if they wish. I'm curious if that's the case for novels as far back as the 70's.
If they were to make this novel into a movie, I hope so.
A nice, good ol' quest would be satisfying for me. The antagonist could be a person simply to stall or prevent the crew from reaching their goal. Spock was the most intriguing character in the 1st 2 movies for me, I would like to get back into more Spock conflict within the plot and have a villain, Vulcan, who may shift tides of Vulcan philosophy. It would still be a traumatic experience for the Vulcanian people and Mr. Spock over the events which happened in the JJ movie "Star Trek".
Bring back the whales but make them EVIL
God, please don't bring back Sybok...
I came upon this on Facebook and it's the most true thing ever:
Is the concept of a new story that doesn't rewrite, ignore, contradict or retcon the old one really so complicated?
"Yesterday's Kelvin"....I like that. (And so would Quentin Tarantino, who has said that he'd like to do something like a big-screen adaptation of "Yesterday's Enterprise.")
IANAL, but I'm fairly sure that Harlan Ellison's estate would put the kibosh on any mentioning of the Guardian.
Ugh. Maybe they can just throw some money at the estate to let it happen.
Though thinking of it as "Yesterday's Kelvin" kind of gives it a "Been there, done that" vibe that doesn't taste good to me. Though having Kirk get to meet his dad after the issues have been played up in the three prior films makes it a bit more palatable, as it seems like a reasonable evolution of that plotline.
Though thinking of it as "Yesterday's Kelvin" kind of gives it a "Been there, done that" vibe that doesn't taste good to me. Though having Kirk get to meet his dad after the issues have been played up in the three prior films makes it a bit more palatable, as it seems like a reasonable evolution of that plotline.
Last edited:
No, that concept — such as it is — is quite simple; the execution would be where it gets tricky.
No, you're not a lawyer. You do, however, have a habit of dragging out this very same hobby horse every so often, each time as if it were a brand-new notion.
Fact is — and I know that you already know this — Ellison never at any point took a position opposing any use or mention of the Guardian. He was only opposed to anyone doing so without A) permission for any new use having first been sought from and granted by the creator, and B) appropriate compensation being rendered for said use. Because, apparently, those terms are in his contract, and he believed strongly that a contract agreed to and signed ought to be honored.
Ellison's repeated refrain has always been that the writer should be paid. Your job (should you choose to accept it) will be to explain, in 25 words or less, why you think that the position of his estate should be different in any way.
Last edited:
Similar threads
