Without Kirk and Spock, the movie bombs. Chris Pine is actually a good actor with presence and good chemistry with the rest of the cast, which isn't easy to come by.
God, without Kirk, I'd probably just wait for Star Trek 4 to show up on disc.
Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag
- Thread starter Doc Mugatu
- Start date
Without Kirk and Spock, the movie bombs. Chris Pine is actually a good actor with presence and good chemistry with the rest of the cast, which isn't easy to come by.
God, without Kirk, I'd probably just wait for Star Trek 4 to show up on disc.
Fixed (I think.) Let me know if that's not how it should be.
It's all a joke. To make money you have to spend money, sure pinch pennys if you have to, but do it in the right area. Not by trying to rip off the male lead who carries your entire series.
Unfortunately whoever is 'in charge' there wants to make money like MCU or Disney but doesn't want to put in the dollars. Good luck with that guys!
Paramount should have had a better strategy with the Trek films. For example, Marvel would have never waited four years to put out IRON MAN 2 like Paramount did with INTO DARKNESS.
Agree n feel many ST fans would feel same. The box office for a ST 4 wo Pine, but w rest of cast will make Beyond numbers look large......
Nope. Once again, Star Trek needs Pine a lot more than Pine needs Star Trek. For a franchise that's already been so poorly marketed, removing the principle star would be disastrous. No one would go see the movie. And I wouldn't blame them.
Nonsense. The first two films - above all else - were an examination of what makes Kirk and Spock Kirk and Spock. It used the advantage of being an alternate reality to break them to their most basic components and them build them back to show that what people thought were essential elements of the characters (as a 'couple') weren't at all.
What was creative about Beyond? It was, by far, the most paint-by-numbers of the three and was every bit an "episode to film" as any of the TNG movies. That's not to say it was bad or anything, it was just really, really safe. It wasn't deep or thoughtful and presented very little in terms of conceptual sapience. There was nothing "creative" about it -- other than the station, I suppose, but that was on the art team.
More to the point, though, the one thing Beyond picked up on was more of the Kirk/Spock relationship, adding in the classic Bones as mediator bit. If the Kelvin movies are anything, they are the journey of Kirk and Spock, way more so than TOS or the classic films were. Taking 50% of that away would be stupid.
But that's not his job. Not at all. If the ship starts taking on water, the captain doesn't push-on further away from shore just because he can.
His job is to either persuade his bosses to either pay Pine what he was promised or recognize it's time to cut bait and move on.
And really, it'll be [at least] 10 years since ST09, it might just be time to start completely fresh again and cut ties with the current franchise.
Gender-swapped TOS Borg movie. Fuck yeah!
To think that it will be ten years since the first film and we only got three films out of it.
I liked the rest but I cannot like this part. Sorry
Give me those three over the TNG films and about half the TOS ones.
I think we can find more successful franchises as examples out there beyond the TOS and TNG films.
Unfortunately I think it's just such a different company from what it was in the GW years - or even the Viacom heyday.
After losing the distribution rights to Marvel films, Paramount doesn't really have much going for franchise films. BUMBLEBEE is supposed to be their re-calibration of the TRANSFORMERS series after the last one underperformed. They're also trying to reboot the TERMINATOR series, after their last reboot bombed.
^^This times a hundred.
Sure, but that's not really an apples to apples comparison. Not that even the Star Trek film franchise is really comparable in terms of what was done with the Kelvin films. I think Paramount dropped the ball in terms of long term planning.
That said, I am still very glad for the films we did get, and if its just three, and then I'll take those three.
I was only happy with one, so I'm not as enamored.
I'm a huge TOS fan, and the one I was least happy with was Beyond. It felt like they took a step back.
He produces this trek? Lol
I disagree with his minimizing the issue. It's disingenuos . Losing kirk, or most of them for that matter, is a big deal.
I get some of his points such as the fact that losing Kirk may force the creative team to truly do something different outside the constraints of having everything to revolve around the same guys. It might be inspiration to get rid of that Kirk daddy issues storyline that, honestly, since jj&Co had mentioned it I have yet to read all this excitement for that plot.. maybe these writers have bad luck or maybe it isn't meant to be. Nevertheless, I still think it's better for them to keep Kirk. For me, Kirk, Spock, Uhura and Mccoy are too important (the doc and nyota particularly more than other secondary characters because they have important dynamics with k/s too). I'd settle for any of them to get smaller roles rather than not having them at all or, worse, recast the characters.
It is worth mentioning that this producer seems to think the creative team is kind of doomed in nostalgia, so the only way you can get something new is through forcing them to by erasing one of the leads. That's depressing. You can do something different not focused on Kirk (if this is the point the guy was making) without necessarily having to fire Pine or recast. Truth is it isn't mutually exclusive and we shouldn't need to get rid of Kirk or Spock or anyone to do that, but it speaks volumes that this producer basically believes that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
