No. But being nineteen months away from the 50th makes me think it's a bit premature to deem it "troubled".
Star Trek's Troubling 50th Anniversary
- Thread starter MakeshiftPython
- Start date
No. But being nineteen months away from the 50th makes me think it's a bit premature to deem it "troubled".
Considering what happened behind the scenes, I think it's understandable that some fans would be very concerned, especially if they're uncertain of the director of choice. Like I mentioned earlier, he's not writing off the reboot, but like any Trek fan he hopes all goes well.
Speaking of which, is there any idea to when they're supposed to shoot the movie? They already have a release date so you'd think something is planned.
Speaking of which, is there any idea to when they're supposed to shoot the movie? They already have a release date so you'd think something is planned.
June of this year. Giving them roughly the same amount of time the first film had (November 2007/Christmas 2008 release) before it was moved to Summer.
Yeah, I'm worried over the state of Trek at the up-coming 50th, too. EnriqueH mentioned the essential problem that the linked article brought to attention: there's currently nobody really at the creative helm.
While Abrams was on board, there were always talks of a new series, animated or otherwise. It seemed like that was always an option they wanted to explore.
Now, though, with Abrams gone and (on a related note) Star Wars making a big comeback, it seems like Paramount doesn't quite know what to do, just rush the next movie out in time for the 50th, and CBS is apparently not even interested in it.
What Star Trek needs is someone in charge of the franchise who cares about the franchise. Star Trek needs someone who can do for it what Russell T Davies did for Doctor Who.
While Abrams was on board, there were always talks of a new series, animated or otherwise. It seemed like that was always an option they wanted to explore.
Now, though, with Abrams gone and (on a related note) Star Wars making a big comeback, it seems like Paramount doesn't quite know what to do, just rush the next movie out in time for the 50th, and CBS is apparently not even interested in it.
What Star Trek needs is someone in charge of the franchise who cares about the franchise. Star Trek needs someone who can do for it what Russell T Davies did for Doctor Who.
No doubt.
I don't think Star Trek needs a central person controlling it. We had that with Rick Berman and the results were less than spectacular.
It might not have ended well, but one should not ignore that Star Trek had over ten very good years under Berman, both creatively and financially.
The franchise was very hit and miss creatively during the entire time Berman ran it.
Just because it didn't end well with Berman doesn't mean the same thing will happen to another show runner type. Bad Robot was for the two films at least, but now they've got their sights elsewhere, leaving the position empty at the moment unless Orci still has some influence (given the dumping of his script, it doesn't sound like it).
Now, come on. Any TV season with more than ten episodes (and is not serialized, but mostly done-in-one) has at least one or two stinkers. And the movies, well, they've had dodgy ones before Berman, too. The majority of Trek under Berman has been good.
But why am I arguing, anyway? The quality is a matter of taste, so you might very well feel the majority of Trek under Berman has been bad.
But one can not deny the several awards and prizes Trek has won under Berman, the very good ratings in the 90s ...
True, at some point Berman lost the touch, and the last few seasons of VOY and the first two seasons of ENT were very much hit and miss, but even there were some nice episodes, some stinkers, and some very, very good episodes.
That's not the argument. The author insists a central figure head is necessary. My point was that sort of control hierarchy isn't a guaranteed thing either.
And his examples weren't all that great. Feige is hardly the all go to guy. The MCU is massive and there are lots of people running the various divisions. And it's been suggested that the buck doesn't necessarily stop with him. And the MCU's growth hasn't exactly been without incident.
Broccoli and Wilson is a pretty unique situation in and of itself. They both apprenticed under their father for years. Hell, there are pictures of Babs sitting in the producer's chair on the set of early Moore films when she was still in junior high.
And the Bond franchise hasn't been without fault since they took over either.
And his examples weren't all that great. Feige is hardly the all go to guy. The MCU is massive and there are lots of people running the various divisions. And it's been suggested that the buck doesn't necessarily stop with him. And the MCU's growth hasn't exactly been without incident.
Broccoli and Wilson is a pretty unique situation in and of itself. They both apprenticed under their father for years. Hell, there are pictures of Babs sitting in the producer's chair on the set of early Moore films when she was still in junior high.
And the Bond franchise hasn't been without fault since they took over either.
No franchise is without its faults, that shouldn't be a reason why there shouldn't be a creative show runner type.
Yes. I personnally do not like where the Bond franchise is currently, but I do acknowledge that it's very much alive. Same goes for Trek under Abrams, I didn't quite like it, but it's there, it brought in new audiences, and there were at least plans for more. Now, there's a movie of which we know next to nothing about, with no plans beyond that.
"Creative show runner type" is exactly why the whole idea is so precarious. The role of producer is so vague these days. In most cases its just names on letterhead.
An very strong case for Albert Broccoli being the single greatest film producer of all time can be made. And he did in an era where "producer" was clearly defined. His kids have tried to maintain that tenant do the best of their ability. But it's the extreme exception, not the rule.
What exactly do we need to know right now?
There aren't a lot of EONs, Marvels and LucasFilms out there because Hollywood doesn't actually like groups like that because they can't control them. Those three examples have/had a very strong hold on the material, making them relatively independent from studios. Trek will likely never get anything like that, but it would be nice to have someone hired to oversee it. Guys like Roddenberry, Bennett, and Berman only got things their way when they paid off and Paramount felt comfortable with those guys in charge. Of course, when shit hit the fan that's when they got dismissed. I thought Bad Robot was basically the showrunner in general. Not the case now that they finally have a franchise they have more love for than Trek.
Exactly.
What franchise would that be? Abrams is only directing Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The rest of the films are being directed by Rian Johnson. Bad Robot isn't running Star Wars.
More than likely the Mouse dragged Abrams there to run Star Wars, maybe finishing Trek XIII was in the cards for him.
But what the Mouse wants, the Mouse gets.
But what the Mouse wants, the Mouse gets.
Bad Robot is credited as co-production company along with LucasFilm. This was announced when Abrams joined as director/writer/producer, along with Bryan Burk as producer.
He's also responsible at least in part for getting Patrick Stewart on board. I don't get the dislike for Berman.
Similar threads
