Agreed, the second should have come out in 2011, and a third one in 2013. They probably would have still burnt out eventually, but might have lasted to a fifth or sixth outing...
Spoilers So now Discovery is 'synched-up' with canon
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
I found myself going, "Why are they deliberately going to back to the Wrath of Khan well, again, and deliberately waggling their inability to move 'beyond' it in our faces. Nope. Did not leave me with any confidence in the new movie franchise going forwards.
Still, I hope Tarantino gets a kick at the can. I think he would be the guy who'd Ellison the motherf*cking film franshise back into something interesting.
Last edited:
Of course we’re all making assumptions here. You’ll get no argument from me that the leap ahead to the future at least appears like it’s a reaction to all the haters who had loathed Discovery for its prequel premise. Whether this is really the case, we may never know.
The move to the future could be that Kurtzman wants Discovery to tell stories on a scale that wasn’t possible in the timeframe the series was originally set. There is honestly nothing they can’t do at this point. They could destroy Earth if they damn well pleased. Hell, he destroyed Romulus in the prime timeline and Vulcan in the Kelvin timeline; two things that we would have NEVER seen take place during the Berman era of Star Trek.
Whether you like that it was done or not, you can’t argue it’s not a bold move for a Trek series.
This new setting allows them to up the stakes as much as they want without having to worry about the canon police coming after them and trying to put their show down because it doesn’t adhere to the established lore.
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing what they do. Did I think it was a necessary move? No.
The move to the future could be that Kurtzman wants Discovery to tell stories on a scale that wasn’t possible in the timeframe the series was originally set. There is honestly nothing they can’t do at this point. They could destroy Earth if they damn well pleased. Hell, he destroyed Romulus in the prime timeline and Vulcan in the Kelvin timeline; two things that we would have NEVER seen take place during the Berman era of Star Trek.
Whether you like that it was done or not, you can’t argue it’s not a bold move for a Trek series.
This new setting allows them to up the stakes as much as they want without having to worry about the canon police coming after them and trying to put their show down because it doesn’t adhere to the established lore.
I, for one, am looking forward to seeing what they do. Did I think it was a necessary move? No.
In agreement. Let's go split some infinitives that have never been split before Discovery!
Going to the far future is fine, as long as classic Trek stories are told.
But negative word of mouth damaged it enough to make them skittish. It took them a while to get back with Beyond and that was less successful than ST ID.
Also don't forget those reports from the early stages of Beyond where scripts were being thrown out because they were "too Star Trek."
It always seemed to me that Paramount was scared of the Star Trek name when Beyond was released. In almost every single trailer for that movie, the word BEYOND would always come up first and then star trek would follow seconds later, but in a very small, almost illegible font. They seemed terrified at the notion that as soon as moviegoers saw they were watching a trailer for a Star Trek movie, they wouldn't go. It blew my mind how they went from promoting the living fuck out of the first Kelvin timeline movie STAR TREK to practically running away from the name by the time they got to the third.
I was always convinced that a large part of the reason for Beyond under-performing was a lack of promotion; both before the release and during. I remember clear as day we got the infamous Sabotage trailer for it during The Force Awakens. The audience laughed like hell because it just seemed so ridiculous. After that, months and months and MONTHS passed without anything. I think they released, like, four photos, but no new trailer until about a month and a half before the movie was due for release. By then, everyone probably had forgotten about it the damn thing.
I think the failure of that movie was all Paramount. They completely mishandled it. Now granted, it did also release during a very crowded summer, but as I recall, Into Darkness had no problem competing with Iron Man 3 and even knocked it out of the number one spot when it was released. And regardless of how we all feel about that movie, it had a very successful promotional campaign that helped it become the highest grossing film in the franchise.
Last edited:
Yes it was. They let fear dictate decisions. And, I have a strong instinct that DSC's production could succumb to that too.
Into Darkness wasn't the worst Star Trek movie, but it was as dumb as a box of hammers, with lots of plot holes.
Beyond was...okay. Honestly the movie elicits no strong feelings in me whatsoever. Suddenly remembering that Spock/McCoy dynamics matter was a good choice. And I liked the Enterprise tie-in within the plot, and the idea behind the villain. But ultimately it was a very generic, by-the-numbers feeling movie.
IMHO if there ever is another Trek movie they have to escape the "defeat the bad guy" dynamic movie Trek has been stuck in since the TNG movies. The TOS movies were all over the place, including elements of everything from lighthearted comedy to murder mystery, and generally had deeper themes to them - similar to TV Trek.
One thing Trek has never done is a good disaster movie. I think that the "man vs. nature" conflict would be excellent within the Trek setting on the big screen.
Beyond was...okay. Honestly the movie elicits no strong feelings in me whatsoever. Suddenly remembering that Spock/McCoy dynamics matter was a good choice. And I liked the Enterprise tie-in within the plot, and the idea behind the villain. But ultimately it was a very generic, by-the-numbers feeling movie.
IMHO if there ever is another Trek movie they have to escape the "defeat the bad guy" dynamic movie Trek has been stuck in since the TNG movies. The TOS movies were all over the place, including elements of everything from lighthearted comedy to murder mystery, and generally had deeper themes to them - similar to TV Trek.
One thing Trek has never done is a good disaster movie. I think that the "man vs. nature" conflict would be excellent within the Trek setting on the big screen.
Someone said this on here around the time the first trailer for Beyond appeared. It was observed that the trailer seemed to be aimed directly at the Fast and Furious crowd; mostly due to Justin Lin's attachment as director. And of course Sabotage blaring the entire time wasn't helped. So, it seemed it was just a generic action movie with Star Trek characters peppered throughout.
Someone mentioned they thought if Trek was to try and mimic any movie out there, they should try to make a movie like The Martian or Interstellar and I couldn't have agreed more. Those two movies clearly showed there was an audience out there for high-concept science fiction.
Someone mentioned they thought if Trek was to try and mimic any movie out there, they should try to make a movie like The Martian or Interstellar and I couldn't have agreed more. Those two movies clearly showed there was an audience out there for high-concept science fiction.
Funny thing: I absolutely love the Fast & Furious movies. They're dumb schlock. But goddamn are they entertaining. And goddamn if I don't love some good old car action. But what elevates these movies, is they're goddamn honest about their theme of "friends are your real family" to their frickin' bone.
Yes, that theme might be only inches deep. But honestly these movies at least have a theme, and they're absolutely coherent about that on follow through in every single entry.
I really wish the new Star Trek movies would have had a similar strong stance to take. And I think "family" would have been a damn good theme, and I think "Beyond" actually tried that, which is why many like that movie so much. But the problem is the action - stuff that works in car movies simply doesn't work in movies with big, capital spaceships. And it showed. Motorbike stunts work in a car franchise. But in "Beyond" even the space fighters behaved like cars. That was a mistake. Star Trek needs action that is more deliberate and tactical.
Considering how much the crew of VOY ("Prime Factors") absolutely fawned over the possibility of beaming between planets (and how it was a serious issue in the Dominion war) - that technology would ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY completely flip over any power balance in the Trek universe. Even in the 24th century.
A war isn't won through winning or losing battles. It's won with ressource lines. Being able to move anything anywhere in no time inside your own territory would absolutely floor any power in the Trek universe. Which is why it's so stupid it was introduced in "Into Darkness" - where they wouldn't even have needed it! (Seriously - "Harrison beamed to a cloaked ship in orbit. We traced that ship directly to Kronos" - how hard was that???)
- And it's only redeeming quality is really how fast they forgot about that same technology in the very same movie (they could have beamed the prisoner John Harrison from the Enterprise straight back to Earth into prison, instead of being trapped by Admiral Robocop and his "Vengeance"-ship.
That's my head canon
They actually could not as the tech was classified and only S31 had access to it at the time.
.
Sad but true.
Though the stories they told, tells me they were only ever interested in the hardcore to begin with.
You didn't catch the name dropping every 15 seconds throughout the first season? I felt like I was watching the Star Trek Encyclopedia.
It's a losing battle no matter what.
At first, I thought of it as pandering to the base. And then I thought about how many times I read about individuals having curiosity and wanting to know more about Sarek, or Pike, or times at the Academy. I look at fan films and the like that highlight prequel era type things to showcase past events.
Ultimately, it is the intrigue of a world that looks prebuild that has a draw. So, they changed what they wanted but also explored stories they thought fans would enjoy. Mileage will vary on that success, but I don't think it was just about the hardcore. I think it was the intrigue of untold stories.
This seems hyperbolic. Also, the Star Trek Encyclopedia was not as exciting. Concordance was much better.
The worst thing of - what happened looks exactly like that was what happened.
And that's a dangerous route to travel! Because - no matter the property - there will always(!) be bitchin'. And more importantly - they're sacrificing what they already built up.
There's a golden line between listening to feedback and incorporating it - that they gave the Klingons beards and their iconic D7 was perfect(!) - and sacrificing your own vision - that's classifying everything that happened so fas under "well we will forbid ever taking about it in the future". That's a slap in EVERY fans faces - the ones that already criticised the show before, but also the happy followers, and those who's first Star Trek show that was.
It's really the worst of both worlds...
