And she briefly appeared in GHOST PROTOCOL, which showed Hunt looking after her from a distance.
Star Trek 4 Reportedly Shelved
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
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...
no doubt characters suffer patterns and tropes the mainstream creates, and the idea a woman makes the hero lose his mojo has always been a persistent one.
In trek, Kirk and Spock were prime examples because while Roddenberry had originally wanted to give them relationships, they were ultimately both trapped into their own tropes just like other characters (the ladies man hero for Kirk, the single forever nerdy sidekick for Spock). No wonder why people started to write slash fiction, even if it essentially romanticized - from a certain perspective - the fact tos erased women from the interpersonal dynamics narrative of the male characters, and made the bromance the be all end all of relationships not because they wanted to add gay subtext as much as it was just the rather explicit sexism of the time (thus how most of the things were made).
Nowadays, things are surely different and there is more balance but I also think a lot of people have still internalized prejudice against romantic relationships in some genres.
There also is a lot of prejudice against male writers who deem romantic relationships as important too and insert them in their narrative.
I don't think it's that there's a prejudice against romantic relationships so much as it's perceived as very predictable that trying to introduce a love interest seems pointless, so writers have to figure out a way of making that story work in a way that feels fresh than coming off as a very tired trope.
I think the worst was SUPERMAN II where Lois' memory of learning Superman's identity was erased after they broke up, as she can't go on with her life knowing his secret.
I think the worst was SUPERMAN II where Lois' memory of learning Superman's identity was erased after they broke up, as she can't go on with her life knowing his secret.
This is too bad. I really liked the Kelvinverse.
Where I think it fell short was the time between movies. The previous movies were either tied to the show that started it all (TOS) or to a show that was recently on TV (TNG).
In order to build a fanbase, you can't go 3-5 years in between installations. Not in modern times. There's too many options. People forget and move on to other things. Star Trek was a hit in 2009, but then it took 4 years for Into Darkness to come out. It was kinda a miss with the core fanbase, that core were lukewarm about seeing Beyond, and Paramount did a TERRIBLE job promoting that movie (and celebrating the 50th anniversary -- them and CBS -- don't get me started).
Where TPTB failed was in giving those of us who liked the Kelvin timeline enough content between the movies. I fell in love with the Kelvin timeline via the IDW comics. I own all of them. I think it's a crying shame that they didn't do a Kelvinverse animated series using those -- I loved how they both did Kelvin versions of classic TOS episodes, yet also told their own stories. Not everyone's going to get the comics, though. An animated series could've kept the torch alive between the movies AND built the audience by bringing in younger fans.
There was also a YA novel series, but really, there could've been more novels, too. I bought the ones I could find, as I saw them, and have re-read them. But... this is a decade-old AU. Not enough content.
Crying shame. There was so much potential in the 2009 movie. But the one thing I will give the Kelvin movies credit for is this -- it kept the torch alive during the decade-plus with no TV Trek. Without the success of the Kelvinverse, we wouldn't have Discovery, the Picard show, or any of the other goodies we're getting now. Star Trek would be like so many other franchises and fandoms: a thing of the past.
I also love that the Picard show is going to reference the incident that sparked the Kelvinverse (the Hobus supernova) and show us what happened in the Primeverse after Nemesis. So that's another thing to thank Kelvin for.
Where I think it fell short was the time between movies. The previous movies were either tied to the show that started it all (TOS) or to a show that was recently on TV (TNG).
In order to build a fanbase, you can't go 3-5 years in between installations. Not in modern times. There's too many options. People forget and move on to other things. Star Trek was a hit in 2009, but then it took 4 years for Into Darkness to come out. It was kinda a miss with the core fanbase, that core were lukewarm about seeing Beyond, and Paramount did a TERRIBLE job promoting that movie (and celebrating the 50th anniversary -- them and CBS -- don't get me started).
Where TPTB failed was in giving those of us who liked the Kelvin timeline enough content between the movies. I fell in love with the Kelvin timeline via the IDW comics. I own all of them. I think it's a crying shame that they didn't do a Kelvinverse animated series using those -- I loved how they both did Kelvin versions of classic TOS episodes, yet also told their own stories. Not everyone's going to get the comics, though. An animated series could've kept the torch alive between the movies AND built the audience by bringing in younger fans.
There was also a YA novel series, but really, there could've been more novels, too. I bought the ones I could find, as I saw them, and have re-read them. But... this is a decade-old AU. Not enough content.
Crying shame. There was so much potential in the 2009 movie. But the one thing I will give the Kelvin movies credit for is this -- it kept the torch alive during the decade-plus with no TV Trek. Without the success of the Kelvinverse, we wouldn't have Discovery, the Picard show, or any of the other goodies we're getting now. Star Trek would be like so many other franchises and fandoms: a thing of the past.
I also love that the Picard show is going to reference the incident that sparked the Kelvinverse (the Hobus supernova) and show us what happened in the Primeverse after Nemesis. So that's another thing to thank Kelvin for.
The same could be said about any interpersonal dynamic, though.
Let's be honest, the so called 'bromance' relationships are, more often than not, as predictable (and cheesy, lol) as romance is. Especially the whole enemies to (magically) friends stuff, not to mention the hero and sidekick tropes.
Fictional friendships between male characters also suffer, in this genre especially, bad writing and a lack of development in that most of the time you are told that the characters are friends but, if you want to nitpick, you never really see that dynamic get truly developed as a realistic friendship. The writers don't even have the time to show that but they seem to believe that just because they make two guys interact a bit, they automatically are best friends foreva.
Trek is guilty of doing that too.
The difference is that those dynamics are default considered useful and important (and they are overinflated) even when the writers don't make any effort to be that original and develop them well, while female characters are considered less important than the guys - hence their dynamics are considered less important too - regardless how they are written. The expectations are different (and often unreasonable) because there is prejudice (which leads to double standards ) and there is bias.
I also believe that just because the narrative had too often belittled women and their dynamics in the past, it doesn't mean that writers cannot do better now, or that when they try to, we have to ignore it and believe it's fail and useless by default.
I mean, in this trek the writers tried to add different relationships compared to the old thing, they certaintly didn't make Uhura a disposable love interest and I honestly don't think her dynamic is written as being less important and having less depth than the bromance. But some fans don't 'welcome' that, there are people who legit perceive Uhura as a 'threat' to the bros and they think that s/u need to break up to make room for more bromance and thus make other dynamics seem more important
Notice that the love interests Kirk and Spock had in tos were never really perceived as a threat, so it seems some fans don't really have issues with 'pointless' love interests. In fact, they prefer them.
I agree.
I honestly got the impression, at times, that the studio doesn't have much consideration for those who liked this trek..focused as they always seem to be on placating the haters only. It seems they have forgotten how successful the first movie was. Not to mention how they seemingly got persuaded into thinking stid (a flawed/divisive sequel for sure) was some kind of flop just because a vocal minority of people online said so (so they thought they needed to ignore it, which is problematic when you are still making a sequel of it).
Mind you, maybe it isn't really like that (I know that what happens behind the scenes of a franchise like this is far more complex than what it may seem to us ) but as a fan this is the impression I got.
But really, maybe the real issue was the fact there seemed to be no "plan".
Last edited:
I truthfully can't say I'm upset by this news. To me the 2nd film was a mess and definitely affected the box office for the 3rd. Here's hoping Picard will bring some nice brilliant conversation back to trek. Having my doubts though.
I will never understand why any Trek fan would claim to be happy that a Trek production has been shelved. No one is forcing you to watch them. Even if you dislike the Kelvin movies, without them, it's unlikely we'd be getting these new shows.
Basically this.
I dunno what this trek has to do with the tv shows currently in production, tbh.
Maybe I'm missing a hidden point here, but it just comes across as some people making it seems like if you get the movies, you won't get the shows therefore you need to cancel the movies.
What makes some believe they are rivals and mutually exclusive when, if anything, this trek actually HELPED and inspired the new shows?
They were lackluster in my opinion. Same with discovery. Sadly the same people are pretty much involved with Stewart's show. Hopefully they respect what came before this time. Some of the stuff I have heard is promising...
There is such a thing as "bad/lazy Trek," continuing to support bad Trek encourages the people making it to think that they can make a substandard product, slap the name Star Trek on it and the money (and the fans) will flow in.
Rejecting bad Trek, while still supporting Trek as a concept, will hopefully motivate TPTB to put some effort and research into making a superior product.
Exactly. Not suggesting there hasn't been bad trek before the Kelvin universe or discovery. There were things I did like about the kelvinverse. But I would have rather just have had a complete reboot of trek, instead of the shoehorn strategy they go for nowadays. Star Wars gets it right when it respects what came before. Sure there have been issues with the prequels and sequels, but compared to Trek it all fits much better.
Yup.Also discovery could have been a reboot. Why do JJs guys think they have to keep walking in prime trek and screwing up the canon? Just do a reboot series and leave the prime universe alone until someone comes along that understands it and wants to grow it forward without trashing canon.
Eh, I don't mind divergent opinions. Trek fans have always been notoriously crotchety. Today, it's boo to Discovery. 5 years ago, it was boo, Kelvinverse. 15 years ago, boo to Enterprise. Everything post-TOS has had a loud group of vocal haters. It's just with social media their opinions are amplified.
It's fact, not opinion, that the Kelvin timeline movies kept the property viable and were the bridge to the new shows. They didn't perform up to expectations, especially the third one, but if there'd been zero Star Trek between 2005 and now, I don't think the fandom would've been better off. It would've just continued harping and screaming about how terrible Enterprise was, and what a disaster Berman Trek was.
I'm tickled pink that fans are so down on the Kelvinverse (and Discovery) while being excited about the Picard show, which is literally going to explore the flip side of the Kelvin timeline -- the Prime timeline after the Hobus supernova.
Trek fans love to complain about things, nitpick, and feel hard done by. It's what this fandom does. I mostly tune it all out.
It's fact, not opinion, that the Kelvin timeline movies kept the property viable and were the bridge to the new shows. They didn't perform up to expectations, especially the third one, but if there'd been zero Star Trek between 2005 and now, I don't think the fandom would've been better off. It would've just continued harping and screaming about how terrible Enterprise was, and what a disaster Berman Trek was.
I'm tickled pink that fans are so down on the Kelvinverse (and Discovery) while being excited about the Picard show, which is literally going to explore the flip side of the Kelvin timeline -- the Prime timeline after the Hobus supernova.
Trek fans love to complain about things, nitpick, and feel hard done by. It's what this fandom does. I mostly tune it all out.
I have to agree with this one. That goes for the TNG movies as well. I tend to find the Kelvin movies more watchable than the TNG movies, (especially the last two) but there were elements in the Kelvins where I felt it was making some fatal mistakes.
I just never got a "must see" feeling with the Kelvin movies. It felt all so empty and missing lots of things. Ultimately the characters felt empty, the overall situation the movies are based on felt empty. Too much action not enough substance to keep the movies going.
The things I did like about Kelvin verse was its style. The characters and society weren't as stiff as the ones in the Prime. The clothes, music, or that they cursed, got into arguments, flirted, said stupid funny things etc. was refreshing. The Kelvin verse is more relatable IMO.
I think a minor problem is that because the Kelvin movies did become popular for while and made more money, the PTB will copy it in the Prime Verse, where we'll see constant, nonstop hyper active action, but little substance.
Or it could kill the franchise.
You mean the same respect TNG got when it came out in 1987 from the righteous fans?????
The more fans change, the more they have the same, 'we don't like whats new' attitude.
You never watched the Star Trek movies after TOS did you?
I can imagine if social media existed in 1979 the backlash when TMP came along and folks saw those onesies and the dodgy looking Klingons, as for the changes in TWOK...well
That might have sounded good in theory, but it doesn't quite work that way. After the ratings of ENTERPRISE dwindled, the lesson the studio took, especially in light of NEMESIS bombing, wasn't to just to make a better Trek show but that there wasn't a big enough demand for the brand anymore. It was only after nuTrek was successful at the box office that the studio recognized there was a high enough demand for more Trek. Then when DISCOVERY was successful enough that green lit more projects, which will bring more variety for the brand.
But the Klingons thing was eventually addressed and very well at that. Until Discovery had to completely change their look again and than use the excuse this season that they shave their heads during war...lol....Discovery producers could have done so much better respecting what came before. They got a few things right (the exteriror of the ship, the phasers,tricorders and communicators) But so much is a departure. Slight updates are fine...but major retconning to the degree that Discovery has pulled is a major disappointment to me.
