Point being, is that it wasn't entirely ignored or ditched.
Star Trek 4 Reportedly Shelved
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
Point being, is that it wasn't entirely ignored or ditched.
just reading the daily Forbes guy about the new GB and this bit stuck out :
its got me thinking that now, the JJTrek while initially deemed a major success and a shining example of how great a reboot can be like the recent equally praised Batman/Bond reboots (albeit playing as something of a 'legacy sequel' itself due to Nimoy) it has now (due to all the latest ST4 pay dispute/'shelved' stuff coming after the initial buzz of 2 new films on the way) been deemed something of a failed reboot in the eyes of the internet (esp in light of the underperforming Beyond), and the Picard series is something of a highly anticipated 'legacy sequel'...as it appears in the last few years the 'complete reboot' has been giving way to the 'legacy sequel' (in hindsight maybe Paramount would've better off going with the Orci/Shat 3 as at least that would've tapped more into nostalgia/legacy sequel/TFA stuff that was really kicking off in 2015 as opposed to the 'full reboot/legacy character free' Beyond - esp in light of the 50th ann)
Last edited:
No more Kelvin Trek ever.
Life is good.
It's a good day,
to bury the Kelvin timeline.
First movie: terrible villain with no good reason to do what he did.
Second movie: British Khan.
Third movie: terrible villain with no good reason to do what he did.
Well aren't you a ray of sunshine. I'll never celebrate less Trek on our screens, TV or cinema. I thought all three movies were flawed, but still very good.
Man I really hate the internet and its ability to skew the perception of reality through unsourced info. No way this reboot is a failed reboot, it still got a complete trilogy and it was quite successful.
Yeah, the original plan way back when was a trilogy. And it's really Paramount/Bad Robot infighting and sabotage that killed the 4th, otherwisethey wouldn't have arranged a cast, director and locations.
I would not be too surprised if Paramount discreetly signs a no-compete clause, a reverse of CBS' one which expired in 2016. Take some guarenteed money from CBS rather than taking a financial risk on another movie.
Congratulations. You are the summation of everything wrong with fandom. Give yourself a big pat the back.No more Kelvin Trek ever.
Life is good.
It's a good day,
to bury the Kelvin timeline.
First movie: terrible villain with no good reason to do what he did.
Second movie: British Khan.
Third movie: terrible villain with no good reason to do what he did.
Everything wrong with the fandom would be supporting all products with the name 'Star Trek' attached to it, blindly. We aren't Star Wars fans, we're better than that.
@Hugues is still new, and may yet learn to be a more charitable and empathetic human being than that post would seem to indicate.
You guys, on the other hand, have been around a bit longer, and really ought to remember that taking personal shots at other posters is an activity frowned upon in these parts. Please try to do better in that regard, won't you?
Last edited:
Well-intended, perhaps, but you may recall that pronouncements concerning "everything wrong with fandom" (whatever that might be) or concerning what TRUFANZ ought to do are also activities which are neither helpful nor desired here. Kindly refrain from engaging in same henceforth.
(Slaps at Star Wars fans aren't a terribly swift thing to do, either, btw, so you should probably skip those, as well.)
Well they certainly didn't come out to see Solo...
I don't know what you're talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to change out the batteries in my Star Trek Helmet.
fair enough
Fair enough. No offence was intended.
I'm late to the game and am just reading through the various threads posted on the Kelvin Universe movies.
But I'm not seeing is anything mentioned about what would have happened if the two Chris's agreed to the pay cut.
What about Quinto?
I was under the impression he signed the contract at the same time as the other two. I can't imagine he would have signed for substantially less sum of money than them. So was he expected to take the pay cut to and what if he didn't after they did Etc.
I just wonder about how everything would have fell in line if they had taken the pay cut what about the rest of the crew Etc
If I missed where this had already been discussed could you please alert me.
But I'm not seeing is anything mentioned about what would have happened if the two Chris's agreed to the pay cut.
What about Quinto?
I was under the impression he signed the contract at the same time as the other two. I can't imagine he would have signed for substantially less sum of money than them. So was he expected to take the pay cut to and what if he didn't after they did Etc.
I just wonder about how everything would have fell in line if they had taken the pay cut what about the rest of the crew Etc
If I missed where this had already been discussed could you please alert me.
It isn't clear what was happening behind the scenes. Sites were reporting that the rest of the cast was confirmed but it only was the two Chris that had issues. However, there also seemed to be the implication that the other deals would get made only after they got the two Chris. It was unclear.
Even though Spock is co-lead, I think Zachary was never promised to get paid as much as Pine so he maybe accepted what paramount&Co were offering, or rather his agent did while Pine's didn't.
Anyway, this maybe is a good example of how you should take things with a grain of salt even when info is posted by generally reliable sites that seem to have real sources. For example, months ago they were claiming that sources told them that Paramount&Co were making the movie with the rest of the cast and regardless the two Chris, but as we are seeing this is not the case. In the end, no one knows what is happening and so far there is no comment by Paramount.
We only know that the movie that was supposed to start filming this month won't happen anytime soon and the reason probably is the mess about the two Chris. Other than that, we don't know much.
I think sites are taking this trek for dead because the deal with bad robot is also coming to an end (but it was a known fact even when they said they were making two more movies and the director was already meeting with the cast).
Well if intimate character relationships are a big factor in what you enjoy in stories, then of course spy films are not going to be your bag because they're always about solitary characters on the move. It's hard to have a stable relationship when your job requires you to be traveling to dangerous assignments you're not expected to come out alive. Worse, your association with your agency might harm those you love. In James Bond's case his wife ended up getting killed in a drive by that was meant for him. In Ethan Hunt's case it was a close call, and he had to leave her so that she could live a happier life. That's part of the lifestyle as depicted in spy genres. They stay relatively solitary with little to no family ties. In one of the Bond films it's revealed that orphans make the best recruits.
Speaking of which, the next Bond film is bringing back a love interest that was introduced in the last film, which will be the first time that a female lead returns for a consecutive film in its 50+ year history.
Definitely, I agree with you about 'bond' characters.
At one point, I might prefer when they give them no relationship because I'm tired of seeing the female love interests always getting killed or becoming an ex the hero needs to forget. It's redundant.
My comment was generic too, though. Truth is, there are characters who aren't like 'bond' but are still treated as people who can only have disposable love interests.
Even trek, in the old thing at least, is guilty of making their main guys too 'married to their job'. As a result, when trek tries to change that a bit some fans have a knee jerk reaction because they are so used to see the characters being only defined by their job and a ship, with bros stuff being the only kind of more stable dynamic the 60s truly allowed, that they can't reconcile with the simple, realistic, notion that these characters represent people from the future and it is just healthy for them to have different kinds of relationships and a private life just like us. In a way, tos missing this aspect was a contradiction of the kind of world Roddenberry had originally wanted to decipt.
Last edited:
It reinforced the stereotype you cannot be a spy and have an established partner at the same time. Hunt might lose his mojo if he has a Mrs Hunt...
I think the only time I saw a movie that showed you can be an agent and maintain a stable relationship was TRUE LIES, which was as much a comedy as was a spy actioner.
It reinforced the stereotype you cannot be a spy and have an established partner at the same time. Hunt might lose his mojo if he has a Mrs Hunt...
That's a fair point. But it still doesn't alter the fact that it wasn't entirely ignored as if it meant nothing to the character, because it clearly did, and fallout makes a point of showing that hunt cared for his ex wife, she wasn't just some conquest the likes of which generally meant jack shit to bond for example.
