Then they don't need Star Trek. That's kind of the point. Star Trek has its own thing, for good or ill now. I would rather grab some ideas from Heinlein and build off of that than work within Star Trek's framework.
Star Trek XIV: What do you want?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
DC? Give me an example of them 'handing the keys' to someone without corporate control.
You’d still be working within Heinlein’s framework. Star Trek has already had different people in charge at the same time. (Roddenberry was running TNG but couldn’t affect the movies.) This is just about having more with greater independence.
Nolan? Some corporate control will always be there, but the better your track record, the more they leave you alone. Successful directors can ask for and receive final cut, for example.
Not the framework so much as the base concepts of science fiction that he tinkered with, either a space patrol or whatever. Science Fiction is a great sandbox. I don't see the reason to try to balance independence and branding when there is so much science at there to be inspired by.
I don't think you understand what corporate control means, Boris. Showrunners/directors/producers are free to work within parameters, even make significant changes to characters (Khan in STID) but they still have to adhere to those parameters when working with established intellectual property.
Your 'dream' is exactly how it works now.
Your 'dream' is exactly how it works now.
Yeah, there seems to be this view that studios are dictators of the highest order, when they usually just want things on time and under budget to make money.
The point is that Kurtzman is now in charge, at least where TV is concerned, and even if your track record is better than Kurtzman’s, you’d still have to coordinate with him and his team in order to fit into the latest program. On the other hand, if Abrams wanted to do another movie, he would pretty much ask to go his own way independent of Kurtzman. You see some of that in the way various DC releases may or may not be connected except in adhering to certain basics regarding established characters and concepts.
Since multiple products are being produced coordination makes sense. And there are few, if any, directors I would give carte blanche too.
So, you want to do SF and be independent? Go the way of Lucas.
There is no formula. There is catching the mainstream in the right mood at the right time for what you are peddling. Don't you think if there was such a thing as "mainstream great" that every movie would make tons of cash at the box office?
What could go wrong if you were to give carte blanche to a director? You’re hiring someone you know won’t make a mockery of Star Trek, and beyond that I don’t see the need for any significant coordination. How much is there between the Arrowverse and the DC films, or even between the latest standalone films and those that still have ties to Snyder’s continuity?
Why do you merely see a choice between Kurtzman’s program and independent filmmaking, with nothing messier in the middle?
Well, no, but the question is whether you trust the current setup to result in a massive success eventually or whether something like that would be more likely if any number of filmmakers were to compete with Kurtzman.
Why would it be more likely?
Let's get to the heart of the matter... what Kurtzman is doing is the success CBS/Paramount+ is looking for. It is driving subscriptions to the service. Personally, I'm not a fan of the live action material they've produced so far, I find it bland and unimaginative, though I do love Lower Decks.
Don't know. Don't care.
More a matter of what makes the most sense in the current environment. TO me, Star Trek (and it's fans) have preferred the interconnected continuity, and expect it to a certain degree. Making it more messy is just inviting unnecessary trouble to my mind.
FWIW, like Trek they're all part of the same multiverse and like Trek, they cross over whenever the story wants them to.
One of the next movies crosses over Snyder's Flash with Tim Burton's version of Batman. Trek could do the same, easy.
Because Alex Kurtzman just doesn’t have much of a track record, so I can only imagine years of middling shows by producers coming and going between seasons before this iteration fizzles out also. I’d like him to have some competition, like Roddenberry and Berman had with the original film series.
Outside the fandom, so it’s not merely about fans subscribing because that’s how they get to watch the shows as they are released? How many people are subscribing because they just have to see these series everyone is talking about? You can’t tell me the property owners wouldn’t want that also.
On TV? He has a bit of a track record.
Paramount+ has a set of numbers that they want from the shows. From budget to subscribers, Kurtzman seems to be hitting those numbers from all appearances, or else he wouldn’t still be around.
So, obviously, the property owners are getting what they want.
Having watched all three movies in a row recently, yea.
There was no need for Khan to exist as a character. It barely comes up in the movie and when it does it's strenuous. Apparently this 20th century superman can help the 23rd century because he's warlike? That's it? That they, already arming up and getting more technologically advanced due to the Kelvin Incident, needed the supermen? Him in particular?
The movie should had opened up with the Enterprise finding the Botany Bay, yea. Then Marcus calls in her dad and/or Starfleet Tactical Command or Intelligence and whatever, takes them away, maybe after a scuffle ala Space Seed. A bit of a time skip. Then Jim Harrison or whatever appears, Khan's dead or frozen again. Starfleet took what they wanted, sealed them up, boom, Khan's out of the picture. But Starfleet started a augment program, they got designs and weapons and tactics flying out of the offices and labs, but Harrison gets power hungry, launches a small civil-war/coup with his augments to 'lead' the Federation to victory in this hostile galaxy. Khan of course wouldn't accept him, maybe then Khan could re-appear as even an *ally* to Kirk, his and his augments come in to fight off Harrison and admiral Marcus alongside Kirk, on the cost that Kirk lets them back on the bay and back into deep space to sleep, or to Ceti-Alpha V to live on and make their own society.
I dunno it might had made more sense that way, I'm just spitballing, but Benedict as Khan just doesn't work, the miracle blood thing didn't work out to me, Marcus and the struggle of militarizing starfleet and using old weapons appeals more. Oh and just cut out that whole Klingon fiasco scene, too. This would be something more in deep space or in the Solar System for once.
John Harrison would have been fine if he had just been an illegal genetic experiment with Marcus eager for a war wit the Klingons, only for Harrirson to turn on him, as you say. No Khan, possible Klingon involvement (because best scene in the film, aside from Kirk's death).
The film would do well without Khan feeling like it had to be included.
The film would do well without Khan feeling like it had to be included.
No dramatic need, no. None whatsoever.
However, think back to the week in early May 2009 when Star Trek opened in general release. Think of all of the interviews conducted during that week with Abrams / Orci / Kurtzman that we saw and read and discussed and dissected.
Now -- in how many of that endless parade did the interviewer not ask some form of the question: "Okay, so you're doing Khan next, right?"
Not many at all. And Paramount, watching over the media response to their new movie, very definitely noticed this.
That is the primary reason we got Khan, even though he appeared nowhere in the early versions of the script prepared for the second (follow-up) film. Paramount insisted he had to be in there, so in he went.
Even if the question of Khan hadn't come up in nearly every interview / review for the first film, the insistence in discussions on fan sites like this one that Khan had to be next was still a big thing. You can bet Paramount was well aware of this, too.
We were always going to get Khan, regardless of whether you or I happened to feel he was necessary or even desirable. Khan was inevitable -- not because there was any dramatic need for him, but because too many non-dramatic factors refused to allow him to not be there. That writing was on the wall in May 2009, in language everyone could read.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
