Star Trek 4 Reportedly Shelved

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by PixelMagic, Jan 8, 2019.

  1. Malaika

    Malaika Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    Yeah, the guy was no saint and I honestly think he would've probably LOVED a lot of the things people hate about this trek, both bad and good.

    As a fan of both franchises I always hated that people confuse the two or think they are mutually exclusive.
    I swear, the only thing in common is the 'star' in the title and spaceships, but star wars is no more an issue or rival to Trek than guardians of the galaxy or the occasional movie set in space is.
    Star wars is a dystopian space opera with strong fantasy and fairytale elements. It doesn't really decipt how writers imagine our future, which is what trek does instead.
    The purpose is very different. Star wars also does have a main recurring plot you might need to follow from the beginning of the franchise otherwise you don't understand what is happening and what the characters are about.
    Recently, it's suffering too. Solo wasn't as successful as they hoped and, in many ways, useless. The other spin off was better. The last jedi had mixed reviews and was disappointing as a sequel so it's now believed JJ has to essentially save the trilogy.
    The difference, perhaps, is that the disappointing results aren't making Disney give it up like Paramount is apparently doing with trek now.

    I might argue that it's actually the star wars franchise that is more for star wars fans than the general audience that trek movies, when done well, can instead capture regardless. Strangely though, many seem to believe the opposite because trek does have a reputation, specifically it's believed that trek movies are only made for old trek fans who loved the 60s show. And they are boring and too complex.

    The only thing I will agree with is that trek losing JJ as a director is a problem because this trek is his 'baby' so losing him created a lot of side effects and no doubt contributed to beyond's demise.
    It's my opinion that a trilogy should be created by the same creative team. This trek suffered the fact there was no real 'plan' for it, no author who has a vision and knew where they wanted to take the plot and end it. If it weren't for the character arcs and things like spock/uhura and other dynamics, these movies wouldn't be really linked together by a common recurring plot that, I think, is what captures the audience the most; the whole 'what next?' And wanting to know how the stories of the characters will continue is important, IMO.
    However, JJ had never planned to be as invested in star wars as he was in trek, and I honestly think he had more power in this trek than he ever will in the star wars franchise.
    Some people seem to think he didn't direct beyond just because of star wars but knowing him from his previous works, I know it isn't his style to want to direct all the movies. He might have directed beyond and might direct more trek movies, but it isn't a given because being the sole director isn't his preference.

    I'm ok with seeing familiar dynamics but the tos homages ultimately aren't the main appeal of this trek for me nor its purpose. I prefer to see developed character dynamics that tos didn't develop and that can thus provide a new perspective. If I were a writer, I'd surely find myself investing my creativity in new things rather than simply trying to replicate what a show from the 60s (with all the cultural influence of that time) did.

    It's kind of ..myopic to want to ostensibly see the old dynamics as the same exact thing they were in tos, never mind the fact these characters are different so even those dynamics should, to respect the characters integrity, change if you want to insert them.
    That particular dynamic was, in beyond, pretty much like an extended tos nod to placate old fans only. While it did provide some quite funny scenes I liked, it came cross as forced to me. For one, giving them more scenes shouldn't mean that Spock is basically stuck with Mccoy the whole movie and he can barely interact with the others (this sidelined Spock and turned into a sidekick where in the first movies he was co-protagonist). Most importantly, you can't ignore this Spock is different and he doesn't thus provide those pretexts tos Spock provided to provoke the banter with the doctor. As a result, this Mccoy comes across as annoying because he seems to attack Spock and dislike him for no other reason than prejudice. He also lacks evolution and that reboot value to him that should make it possible to see him under a different light too. Plus, he already has the banter with his friend Kirk that is more credible, and Kirk himself had that love/hate relationship with this Spock which is far more motivated by the plot than the spock/mccoy one is. And I have to add that I don't need nor want this Spock to be an impersonation of tos Spock just to have the same banter with Mccoy. I'd rather have their interactions reflect the fact itself that this Spock is a more contemporary character who still has a mixed child conflict, but he doesn't pretend to be just vulcan nor he seems to be on denial about his feelings. There are things that should inform Mccoy's opinion of him in a different way than how tos Spock was perceived in his reality.

    Point is, this ostensibly wanting to see the old dynamics and making it a 'flaw' when you don't see the same things did, IMO, prevent some fans from seeing the real character arcs they have in this trek and thus the merit of the dynamics of this trek. In Mccoy's case, it also is bad that so many only notice his purpose in the old trio lacking here but essentially underrate his dynamic with Kirk that had been important and meaningful from the very beginning.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
    saddestmoon and fireproof78 like this.
  2. valkyrie013

    valkyrie013 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    They want to make Star Trek in to this Uber fanchise with Billion dollar movies, and 20 series. Cbs is being a bit guilty in this one to since its trying to do All Star Trek, All year.. just for u to keep a subscription to Cbs No Access. I for 1 did get it for the duration of Disco(inferno) and canned it right after, since I don't watch most of anything else on Cbs.
    Paramount needs to think of Star Trek like John Wick (hear me out) They know John wick isn't going to do a billion dollars.. so they keep the budget modest, and when it makes say 200 million world wide.. it makes a decent profit. Thats what you have to do.
    Beyond made 345 Million world wide, so to make a profit you need to keep the budget around 100 million plus marketing. At 100 million, you can still make a killer effects laden movie. but it can't be every second of the movie. Beyond could have saved some money by not making every planet shot a cgi shot. Go up in to the rocky's and do some B role for a fraction of the price. We won't notice, or care. Hell just make the sky purple or green tinged.. Ta da!
    So. Do a more Wrath of Khan bottle show with most of the time on the ship, or on a cheap location. It can be done!
    Star Trek will Never Ever be Star Wars ( though if they keep diluting Star Wars with sub standard movies.. egh.. maybe)
     
  3. mos6507

    mos6507 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    McCoy was better in Beyond for sure, but then they had to cram him into a fighter to maintain the pew pew quotient. Even though he complained about it in-script, it felt...Michael Bay-like. So I really think all of the praise being heaped on Beyond in this thread is a little overstated.
     
  4. BurnhamAll

    BurnhamAll Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    I don't disagree that they need to find a more clear direction (because right now it very much feels like a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks") but I'm not sure that they're headed down the wrong path right now.

    Discovery is a good show, if uneven, that I hope will find it's feet by the end of Season 2 (with a more consistent tone and direction). The Short Treks were a smart and well-executed endeavor. The films are scrapped, and I'm OK with that. A Picard series in production and so far sounds like it has a lot of potential.

    Unless you really hate Discovery (which I know a lot of diehard Trekkies do), I'm not sure there's any real reason to fire the existing team and start over.
     
    saddestmoon and fireproof78 like this.
  5. BurnhamAll

    BurnhamAll Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    It was a sure fire hit, financially. The film itself was not a critical success, however, which is a big reason STB suffered.
     
  6. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Umm.... much of the Altamid stuff was shot in the forests of Vancouver. The whole reason they shot in Canada was to save money. And get tax rebates.
     
    saddestmoon likes this.
  7. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/

    Critical success? Seems to have pretty solid numbers to me. 312,00+ people rated it a 4.2/5 and it had an average review score of 85%.

    I think Beyond failed because Paramount got piss their pants scared because of the publicity the movie got when 100 fans ranked it the worst Trek film ever. So they threw away all the cool elements of Into Darkness that deserved attention and essentially rebooted within the reboot.

    They had no faith in the road they were taking, and ended up with a $200 million dollar bomb because of it.
     
  8. BurnhamAll

    BurnhamAll Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2019
    Fair enough.
     
  9. DaddlerTheDalek

    DaddlerTheDalek Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    NRW, Germany
    It's looks like that Paramount is gambling the movie away. That pisses me off.
     
    saddestmoon likes this.
  10. Nyotarules

    Nyotarules Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Location:
    London
    If it make his estate money he will roll with joy

    I was one of those fans, only because in the cinema they lost me from the 'my name is Slim Shady er Khan' scene, it was my first face palm moment, the second was Marcus in her knickers and the third that parody er well intentioned homage by Spock.
    The STID movie would work without making Khan one of the villain of the piece. They already had a new Trek bad guy with Marcus.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  11. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    What "cool elements" are you referring to?
     
  12. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Khan and his followers, Section 31, war with the Klingons. All things that were left hanging.
     
  13. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Ah. Well I never expected Khan or his followers to ever be followed up in a sequel. Of course keeping Khan alive is a way to give them the option to use him if they want in a future installment, but I was never holding them up to it. As for Klingons and Section 31, they were too squandered IMO to ever be a believable threat after the way this film handled them. I've especially been done with Klingons since the end of DS9. It's bad enough DISCOVERY indulged in a Klingon war, at least the Kelvin films didn't try bothering me with that.
     
  14. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    We may have actually seen the war on screen, and the Federation wouldn't necessarily have to win. Which are two big differences from what Discovery gave us.
     
  15. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    I'm just sad we'll never get to see Pinto v. Borg.
     
  16. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Given what I saw of them in STID, no thanks. In the end, no more Klingon wars. No more bat'leths. No more calls for glory and honor.

    It's too bad. Given Kelvinverse's predilection for sizing things up I would have looked forward to seeing the Borg cube being the size of a solar system, just to let you know how bad they are.
     
  17. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Still smaller than the V'ger cloud! ;)
     
  18. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Yup.
    *For reference the V'Ger cloud was 82 AU. The Sol System (At least measured to Pluto) is about 40.

    And I fully expect any film cube to be "bigger," I think the ideal size is about 100Km on a side.
     
    saddestmoon and BillJ like this.
  19. MakeshiftPython

    MakeshiftPython Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Not on my Director's Edition copy.
     
  20. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    It was changed in the DE. Original releases were 82 AU.