More like:
A Few Thousand Streaming Fans: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GIVE US LEGACY SET POST-PICARD!
News The ongoing next Star Trek movie thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
More like:
A Few Thousand Streaming Fans: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GIVE US LEGACY SET POST-PICARD!
If there is a movie made, I'll be there opening night. Now all Paramount has to do is show me they're serious about making a movie.
And in all of this, CBS could likely try to put either Section 31 or the proposed Picard film on the big screen if they like what they are seeing during production.
You are applying tone to peoples posts and then saying their explanations don't fit the tone you yourself are applying. That's a you issue.
Too many cooks in the kitchen (what's new?).
It's in Paramount's best interest to have the lowest budget they can possibly get away with, meanwhile Bad Robot probably wants the biggest budget possible.
When there was buzz about a Tarantino ST film, it was still reportedly going through JJ. In fact every ST4 project has, so he's clearly still involved.
I know you like Abrams, but I think ST needs a new approach from a production standpoint. I'd prefer some new blood behind the scenes.
And even then there'd be room for skepticism.
I generally like Star Trek, so I’m not beholden to it being made by Bad Robot. If the movie looks interesting it doesn’t matter who produces it.
I wouldn't call LDS a prequel. Yes it takes place before PIC, but LDS is never treated like a prequel.
Some prequels are fine it's just... damn near everything we're getting is a prequel. SNW is cool, whatever.
*EDIT - I'm using "Prequel" in terms of "Prior-to-TOS".
If they want to do a "Lost Era" show, fuck yeah. Do it.
I think Legacy stands a good chance to be only quasi-nostalgia. There would be some for sure, but it's also open to do completely new things in a way that makes sense for completely new things to happen.
Probably.
Agreed.
I wouldn't either. But, the interpretation and takeway from a business side is the appeal of the references to fans. So, you have Picard and when did it become popular? When it referenced and set up the players in their past roles. SNW? It's appeal can be attributed to the episodic nature and taking on TOS, but it is obstentiably a prequel. So the success could be read another way. LD is a similar way. It could be read as taking those references and preferring that, rather than as follow up to past stories.
Prequels take on a different life because it's like, well if this is popular then going back and explaining it is even better.
Not sure if that makes any sense. At this point my brain has probably checked out.
What you're saying makes sense, unfortunately studio executives keep forgetting the critical/financial beatings that prequels largely take.
Honestly, to my mind, they keep looking at TWOK and 09 and go "That's got to be how we make it work to make money." Combine that with envy of Marvel and you get a rather unfortunate mix of expectations of the money, the story, what current franchise projects are going on, and then it's "too many cooks" as noted by others. So, when I see things like "I don't get why Paramount is doing this" I go back to the idea of them trying to serve way to many masters and make it all work.
But... that's also, quite literally, a sequel as well.
If fans reacted well to Picard Season 3... one might think that it's only logical to... do another one of that. People liked the thing, so give more of the thing.
I'm ok with that.
The problem with prequels is that they tend to not actually do what they're supposed to do. I want more of "the thing", I don't something that kind of references "the thing" but everything in it has been changed and updated because "the thing" is kind of old so they can't show to modern audiences but they still want to bank on "the thing".
Just... give me more of "the thing" and i'm happy.
It stands a real good chance of never happening.
But, you can't define "the thing." So we assume that production teams see this thing the same as audience members but they can't, by the nature of art. It is an ongoing process of creating, collaborating and adjusting. It ends up making "the thing" for the audience, but then they rely upon that feedback, while still looking at it from a very different point of view than an audience member.
So, while audience member will clamor for the thing, creators might not know how to get to the thing. So, go back and explore the origin is an appealing storytelling framework to try and get to that thing.
The Flash's fulcrum timeline/universe idea is a good one. But also, every timeline/reality/universe that "branches" from the main universe has to become is own independent timeline/reality/universe. Otherwise you'll get multiple, different versions of characters converging on points of time travel that extend further back than the original "branching" point, if this particular instance of time travel is even necessary in the new timeline/reality/universe.
Except... Dark Phoenix's ending is totally incompatible with the end of Days of Future Past. Wolverine: Origins features characters at totally different ages to the other films.
The point isn't to nitpick, it's that the general audience doesn't really care so long as what they're watching is good.
Even though Wolverine: Origins wasn't.
Not if Jean comes back to life like she did in the comics. We even see some vestige of her energy floating around at the end of Dark Phoenix, it just needs to be somehow reconstituted into a physical form. That's not especially hard to imagine in a comic book universe.
Besides, Dark Phoenix is a sequel to Apocalypse, which is a sequel to Days of Future Past. It's not like it was just some random unconnected project.
Similar threads
- Locked
