Well, definitely no J.J. Abrams for Trek 4

[DrCorby]

For a lot of those trek fans, the reboot isn't "trek" simply because they couldn't have their nostalgic 3 white dudes status quo being front and center, and they thus like beyond because it sidelined Uhura to give Mccoy and the "bros" more screentime. That may be more "trek" in terms of the reboot going backwards to restore some stuff from the old thing, but it really isn't "trek" in terms of those ideals of progressiveness, inclusiveness and all the supposedly contemporary and visionary stuff trek fans love to preach about all the time in their online efforts to make it seems that being a trek fan makes them, somehow, more "special" than fans of other franchises.

I completely disagree with this. I thought Uhura got quantitatively more as well as more interesting things to do in "Beyond" -- she demonstrated leadership towards the other Enterprise survivors, she was creative in seeking information about their captors, and she was daring in defying the restrictions placed on them. Aside from a couple of character beats in '09 and "Darkness", a lot of her role was wrapped around being "Spock's girlfriend". And while I approve of the advent of their romantic relationship, I object to that being the lion's share of what her character is. Like a real person, that should only be part of who she is, and more to the point, only part of what the character is about, especially if she's supposed to be one of the major characters in the new movie cast. THAT would indeed be more forward-looking...

You may see it differently, of course.

 

[Malaika]

I completely disagree with this. I thought Uhura got quantitatively more as well as more interesting things to do in "Beyond" -- she demonstrated leadership towards the other Enterprise survivors, she was creative in seeking information about their captors, and she was daring in defying the restrictions placed on them. Aside from a couple of character beats in '09 and "Darkness", a lot of her role was wrapped around being "Spock's girlfriend".
And while I approve of the advent of their romantic relationship, I object to that being the lion's share of what her character is. Like a real person, that should only be part of who she is, and more to the point, only part of what the character is about, especially if she's supposed to be one of the major characters in the new movie cast. THAT would indeed be more forward-looking...

You may see it differently, of course.

Of course.

I read this kind of argument being made before ( for the most part by people who favor the male characters and their dynamics, and are thus happy to see them being front and center, of course) and I, frankly, find it patronizing in its attempt to infer that the new creative team actually treated Uhura/Zoe 'better', and its essentially making 'consolation prize' excuses to derail the actual point people are making when they complain that Uhura got sidelined in Beyond, and the movie went backwards with the dynamic(s).

It's very disingenuous to pretend that the new team didn't 100% ignore the fact that JJ&Co made her part of the main 3, and that they ignored this fact TO prioritize bromance and tos nostalgia... and give more screentime to McCoy and Scotty at her expense. This, along with the fact that they actually replaced Zoe as third lead with Urban, made this trek go backwards compared to its own standards (the first movies and the aspects that JJ made more contemporary).
Elevating her to the original trio level, as well as showing relationships that are new to trek (and make bromance less the be all end all of representation when it comes to interpersonal relationships) was a bolder and less 'safe' move by JJ&co than anything Beyond did with any of the characters, let alone Uhura.
And it isn't just going backwards, it's bad writing and lacking integrity too - not to mention lacking respect for the audience of THIS trek that made the first movies successful and that was, reasonably, expecting this movie to be a sequel of the first two. An audience that, unlike me, may not waste their time writing long posts about this movie but that still expressed their opinion by making Beyond the least successful movie of the 3. In that sense, you can't even say that their choice to ignore this reboot's dynamic was a good choice that 'helped' this trek 'flourish'.

(edit to add: while it's legit you may disagree with what I said, I need to point up - in support of the fact that maybe, just maybe, I'm not 'imagining things' - that there are people even in this thread who 'see it differently' too as they admitted that, indeed, they were 'happy' Beyond sidelined Uhura, thus validating the main point I made in the part of my comment that you quoted.)


Now, to expand on the whole 'consolation prize' argument you are making here and why I disagree:

• The fact that Uhura ends up being the one who interacts with the ( most sidelined) villain of this trek the most can't negate (let alone justify) the point expressed above, and thus the fact they still sidelined her and her dynamics that were/are part of the 'heart' of his trek (not to mention one of the aspects that make this trek its own thing separated from tos).
  It doesn't negate this creative team's main 'agenda': priorizing male characters, their feelings and their dynamics over the female lead character and her dynamics.
  And it doesn't negate the fact that for many it's frustrating that they went backwards with the dynamics in order to placate some fans' nostalgia (not to mention it makes it seems like they were more or less placating the ones who whined about Uhura 'replacing' McCoy and who perceived the woman as a 'threat' to the white dudes status quo)
  
  
• This: 'she demonstrated leadership towards the other Enterprise survivors, she was creative in seeking information about their captors, and she was daring in defying the restrictions placed on them.'
  is all cool stuff that we didn't even really see to the extent you make it seems it was showed/developed on screen, though. And no wonder why: her screentime got so reduced that, at one point, people were left wondering what the heck was happening to Sulu and Uhura when half of the movie doesn't even show them. The potential of their dynamic, and the situation they find themselves into in the movie, was really wasted by a narrative that sidelined EVEN her dynamic with Sulu that, coincidentally, happens to be the 'duo' whose scenes were the most cut and reduced by Lin (to the point they, honestly, have no dynamic compared to the other 'duos'). Sidelining the female lead character of the iconic crew (that, again, was originally elevated to original trio level by JJ) is bad enough, but when critics and fans point up that the two poc of the cast seem to be the ones who got the short end of the stick in this movie, in terms of screentime and the development of their dynamic in a movie that apparently had the 'goal' to develop 'new' dynamics, it's a bad sign especially for a franchise that preaches so much about being one of the most 'progressive' and inclusive'.

• re: "Like a real person, that should only be part of who she is, and more to the point, only part of what the character is about"
  Believe me, you aren't seeing people complain about THAT. It's fine to show her having a life outside of her relationship(s) (something that McCoy doesn't have, again. and this fandom doesn't care about it) but that's what the movies already did.
  Beyond isn't the first time they show her skills, or where she has an important role for the main plot (it seems, rather, you are minimizing her having that kind stuff in the other movies too just because she interacts with her boyfriend more, in spite of Beyond's 'character beats' not being more obvious or important, honestly) but it's the first time - in a sense - where they make it mutually exclusive with her private life and thus sacrifice the latter.
  And this is not ok, especially in context of the kind of subplot they establish for her and Spock in the movie.. a subplot that required her to have agency and thus being allowed to express her feelings for him and in regards to their relationship TOO.
  
  I can't praise Beyond for totally omitting Uhura's feelings, ALL THE WHILE the male characters are allowed to express their own feelings and experience their own interpersonal relationships (that are denied to her because, again, she doesn't even get to have a friendship with Sulu truly explored). It's all the more glaring when her personal relationship with Spock is even used as a pretext to give the dudes something to talk about and express THEIR feelings, while half of that relationship isn't allowed to do the same!
  That's dehumanizing women reducing them to 'strong female character' stereotypes and there is nothing progressive, modern or 'good' about that. It's just sad actually. It's sad, and frankly unacceptable, that in 2017 a woman is not allowed to have feelings and relationships on screen or certain fans will call her 'weak' or 'naggy girlfriend' for that (for the very thing they, on the flip side, praise the male characters for!) .
  
  To summarize it: reducing her character to her job only isn't any better or 'real' than reducing her to the girlfriend role - especially, I might add, when tos Uhura never got the chance to have a personal life outside of her job in tos because of sexism and racism.

Some things don't exist in a vacuum. I do appreciate the positive aspects of her portrayal in Beyond (and I'm the one who pointed up, in my other comment, that even when she's sidelined I find her a bit more layered as a character than McCoy and the other secondary guys) but this creative team had ulterior motives with Uhura. It's irresponsible, not to mention impossible for me, to ignore the fact that the choices they made for her were directly influenced by their own bias for the male characters, and their own self-serving desire to: 1) prioritize male characters and nostalgia for the bromance 2) find a pretext to not deal with the female character's feelings and her dynamics.

And I'll say this again: I'm over this fandom's hypocrisy and double standards for the female character and her dynamic.
Uhura's personal life, and Spock's relationship with her, is no less important for their character development than McCoy's friendship with the boys is. It just isn't.
Preference for one kind of interpersonal dynamic doesn't make it more needed than another kind, or more relevant to the plot, or more untouchable and sacrosanct. You can't have someone like Urban complain that he wants more bromance and can't seem to see a purpose for his character outside of that, and people praise him for that, and then wank about Uhura being just 'the girlfriend' everytime she gets scenes about her own interpersonal relationship.

I never read people complain about McCoy being too defined by his 'friend' role. Honestly, the idea alone makes me laugh because I'm like 100% sure no one will ever complain that he 'needs' to get his own character outside of the bromances, or that they should develop him like a real person, that should only be part of who he is, and more to the point, only part of what the character is about and not everything we see about him.

 

[Qonundrum]

With JJ being confirmed for Star Wars IX and everybody on the internetties already whining about how he only plays it safe - which is arguably good for the first outing (despite ep VII for a variety of reasoned reasons) but not always after that--


I'd rather see Pegg & Co. keep writing and producing more Trek. Movies or TV eps. (though the inclusion of music, while working surprisingly well in "Beyond" (usually mixing futuristic sci-fi with geezer music doesn't bode well but "Beyond" won me over remarkably fast for its inclusion, usage, and especially plot relevance - really nicely done) is the sort of trick that can't last forever... )

 

[DrCorby]

Of course.

...its essentially making 'consolation prize' excuses ...

I was going to make a long response, pointing out that different configurations of characters doesn't necessarily mean a certain character isn't doing something important for the plot; that Uhura's discussion w/ Spock that him leaving Starfleet to help the larger Vulcan culture should involve her gives her a part to play emotionally as well in the movie; that since the 60s, women have been asking for parts that let them do the action stuff alongside the men and not just have characters defined by their relationships with male characters, and "Beyond" let Uhura do some of both,...

Then I stopped. And asked myself, "What's the point?"

It's clear from your extensive responses that you see me and many others as not just wrong, but evil. Essentially asking, "When are you going to stop being a sexist, racist pig, hating women and persons of color?" And even if I applaud opportunities in movies for female and POC characters to develop, I apparently still subconsciously want to hold them back, keep them down, deny them actual equal representation. I and the director of "Beyond" have an "agenda" of oppression. (Based, for my part, on a single post on a forum.) No rational conversation is possible in the face of that attitude. So I choose to not continue this pointless exercise. This is why I never venture into TNZ...

By doing so, I know I open myself up to assertions that I had no good answers, couldn't take the heat. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

May you live long and prosper.

 

[Malaika]

I was going to make a long response, pointing out that different configurations of characters doesn't necessarily mean a certain character isn't doing something important for the plot; that Uhura's discussion w/ Spock that him leaving Starfleet to help the larger Vulcan culture should involve her gives her a part to play emotionally as well in the movie; that since the 60s, women have been asking for parts that let them do the action stuff alongside the men and not just have characters defined by their relationships with male characters, and "Beyond" let Uhura do some of both,...

• "different configurations of characters doesn't necessarily mean a certain character isn't doing something important for the plot"

That's OK, but I never said otherwise.
You are derailing the point (and then getting defensive because I noticed it, basically)
It's interesting that you replied to that specific comment of mine as if to disagree with my assertion about some fans being happy they sidelined Uhura to "restore the original trio" (the part of my reply that you specifically quoted), when there are people in this very thread that have validated said assertion already (thus giving evidence that I'm right about some fans and how they responded to the movie) with their own admission that yes, they sidelined Uhura and they are happy about it. In this context, it surely is curious that while you disagree with the notion that they sidelined Uhura, you didn't disagree with those people too. You only replied to me to "remind me" that Uhura has an important role in the movie, in spite of me saying that myself in my other comment.
I mentioned that even when she's sidelined in terms of the role jj gave her as part of the trio and her dynamics (my point, that you are derailing), she still makes more important contributions to the plot than Mccoy..whose character is overrated by fans and given a pass or praised for the very thing people project on Uhura to criticize her: him being defined by a relationship.

In light of my opinion being, honestly, as 'layered' as I could express it already, your response seems to be a moot point because it feels like you are disagreeing with me about something that I never said anyway (I never said her role isn't important) . THAT comes across as disingenuos and as you are just trying to derail my other point.

and, honestly, you seem to be the one here who can't see things 'in the middle' and as being more nuanced and complex than what they seem.
I'll say this again: Uhura having a good or decent role doesn't negate that the movie went backwards in some aspects such as the main 3 including a female character, and the new dynamics that took a back seat to focus on nostalgia bromance.


Now, onto some points I still need to address for the sake of further giving context to my opinions and why I see things differently from you:

• "that Uhura's discussion w/ Spock that him leaving Starfleet to help the larger Vulcan culture should involve her gives her a part to play emotionally as well in the movie"

A discussion that we didn't see. So she isn't really given a part to play emotionally.
You only see her trying to give him the necklace back, but you don't know a thing about how Uhura is feeling and what had really happened between them. Her pov doesn't exist there. It just doesn't because the narrative doesn't allow her to express her feelings or even mention Spock on screen.

What you have is the male characters talking about her, which doesn't replace her own agency and pov! I don't want to hear Mccoy assume that she was "upset", I want to see Uhura TOO being allowed to show her feelings about what is happening between her and Spock. Mccoy is no one there, he's just an unreliable narrator that Spock is using to express his own feelings. He isn't the one in a relationship with Spock. And even if he was right about her being upset, it's still bad that she isn't allowed to express the feeling on her own, with her own voice, with her own scene.
Furthermore, Mccoy actually trivialised Spock's conflict and the reason for the break up a bit with his own, limited, assumptions (which is normal because, again, he can't know what happened between them. Nor Spock is willing to talk about all the details with him)
Spock and Uhura have a subplot in this movie but her pov about it is, essentially, replaced with McCoy's pov about their relationship and his assumptions because Uhura isn't allowed to express her own too. There is little to counterbalance.

Yes, Jung and Quinto said that Uhura broke up with Spock because she wanted him to be free to make a choice and not stay just for her, which is very mature and really paints their relationship as being deep and them loving one another in a selfless way. It's great that, maybe, he'd stay if she asked him to but she's happier in the end that he realizes that his place is Starfleet too.
However, the narrative (and maybe we have to blame Lin for that, maybe their script was different and he cut other scenes beside the one where Sulu talks about his family) doesn't show this. It may be a little implied, but as matter of fact, Uhura's feelings are omitted so even this "amazing" subplot is wasted. And I'm sorry, but erasing a woman's feelings from the narrative WHILE making a point that male characters can freely talk about their own feelings IS sexism. Or at the very least, it can't be pro women or progressive like you make it seems that it is. That sounds like a joke, honestly.

The writers and Lin had the responsibility, since they created this subplot for S/U, to show her side of the story too and do that THROUGH her own voice and her own scenes with Spock. And they didn't.
The mudship argument from stid? That's giving her more agency than Beyond cared to give her because in that scene, that fans with blantant double standards endlessly harpy on to call her 'naggy girlfriend', Uhura is simply allowed to express her feelings and her perspective in the relationship the way dudes are allowed to do all the time [and are praised for in the name of headcanons about supposed id-ego-superego 'roles' and stuff that wasn't even in tos scripts and character profiles, let alone being relevant to THIS trek]
I have a feeling that had Lin directed stid too, he'd probably only show Uhura being upset with Spock before the mission and then have a scene where the 'bros' explain to Spock that his girlfriend is angry with him and why, they suppose, she is,.. and then he'd suddenly 'see the light' and she'd kiss and forgive him after he 'apologizes'. His narrative wouldn't give a damn about her pov, in spite of giving illusion that her pov is 'mentioned' and thus cared about.

• "that since the 60s, women have been asking for parts that let them do the action stuff alongside the men and not just have characters defined by their relationships with male characters, and "Beyond" let Uhura do some of both,..."

fair enough, but beyond didn't really let her do both. The other movies did, but not beyond.
What is the innovation in this movie, exactly?

And, also, since you want to talk about feminists ...I hate to remind you that but Uhura is not a white woman.
Yes, for white feminists it's great to see female characters not defined by relationships, or who aren't love interests, but for women of color? A different story. For them it's the opposite because the stereotype they have to fight against is the opposite. For characters like Uhura the cliché is not "the girlfriend", it's "strong independent woman who don't need no man" and who is defined by her job only and has no private life. What they seek representation of is them being portrayed as humans, and thus the notion they deserve love and protection too.
And Uhura is an example of that as she had no romance in tos because of racism, first foremost. Because there was so much fuss about a forced kiss between her and Kirk that almost didn't make it to the final episode because it was THAT controversial at the time.

It's not that people are "obsessed" about race, but when certain points are raised (you are doing that) it's just irresponsible to ignore some things especially when white feminists, who supposedly should be pro all women, constantly make the mistake of projecting their own individual struggles on that of all the women and turn a blind eye when it comes to intersectionality. This has been, historically, the biggest and most controversial aspect of feminism that alienates a lot of women. It's not just about woc, think about transgender or disabled women: you can't go to them and discount the little representation they have in the mainstream as "love interests" on the basis of that being a common portrayal of cis white women, and thus cis white women demanding to get represented differently.
All in all, though, I think that regardless intersectionality we should stop labelling any female character who has a relationship as "just a love interest", and thus make some things mutually exclusive when they aren't. That is part of the problem and has to stop because, frankly, it's starting to get used as a means to erase women all the more (to make everything about bromance, in this case) and find pretexts to limit their portrayal all the more. It's not really a call for more layered, complex and 'real' female characters.

So yeah, relegating Uhura to a woman only defined by her job dehumanizes her a bit, and is going backwards to the 60s where her character was, for racist and sexist reasons, denied a personal life explored/developed.
And again, you are talking about trek here. It's more glaring in trek because it really is a franchise where interpersonal relationships between the guys are so important to the narrative and even make male characters defined by them.
For almost 50 years, bromance was everything we were allowed to get with these characters , but the reboot introduced different kinds of dynamics too and it's good. Dynamics that include a woman and elevate her by making her able to access to narrative elements that were exclusive to guys only before.
And beyond went backwards because they made it all about bromance again using nostalgia as an excuse to essentially make trek stuck in the past. They, once again, made the "bros" stuff the only kind of interpersonal relationship truly explored and not only Uhura is not allowed to have scenes about her romantic relationship, she isn't even allowed to have friendships because even her dynamic with Sulu is reduced, cut, sidelined until out of all the group dynamics, theirs is the one not developed.

It's clear from your extensive responses that you see me and many others as not just wrong, but evil.
Essentially asking, "When are you going to stop being a sexist, racist pig, hating women and persons of color?"

well, that escalated quickly.
Do you assume everyone who disagrees with you (in my case you were the one disagreeing with me, so I just replied) must believe you are evil? Really? Where did I even attack you using these terms? You are projecting.

I wish I could say I'm sorry you got this impression, but I honestly feel like I just replied to you and tried to make my points as clear and as nuanced as I could in a message board. Besides, I always try to make my points about fandom in general rather than accuse only one individual of doing X thing.

It seems, rather, you just aren't interested about what is my opinion in spite of being the one who replied to me, thus implicitly asking for my reply (or at the very least, you should've expected the possibility I could reply since it's me you are specifically quoting)

I and the director of "Beyond" have an "agenda" of oppression. (Based, for my part, on a single post on a forum.) No rational conversation is possible in the face of that attitude. So I choose to not continue this pointless exercise. This is why I never venture into TNZ... By doing so, I know I open myself up to assertions that I had no good answers, couldn't take the heat. Whatever helps you sleep at night. May you live long and prosper.

in short, you feel you were victimized by a post in a fanboard (that didn't even really attack you the way you make it seems that I did), after being the one who provoked further debate anyway. The struggle is real.

Honest question here: what kind of reply you expected me to give you, aside from an unrealistic 'I agree with you. You're right and I'm wrong'? You don't seem to give me that many options..

 

[Shalashaska]

What Star Trek 4?

 

[ISS Enterprise]

With respect

How did JJ n crew make Uhura part of big 3 in 1st two movies?

Please be concise and to the point

 

[PixelMagic]

Please be concise and to the point

lol

 

[Malaika]

I guess it's a pity for some people that message boards don't have the same character limit of Twitter.
Probably's one of the reasons why sensational click-bait titles are always successful in making people write angry long rants about articles they didn't bother to read.

As for me, when I come across the utter brilliance of comments like this by people like @ISS Enterprise, I'm affraid I'm too limited and I can't compete with such insights, such use of language, such "concise" profoundness and ability to get (to) the point
So I don't even try to.

 

[Commishsleer]

people are totally allowed to like the 3 bros being front and center, but it feels a bit disingenuos when the same cannot comprehend why nowadays audiences won't collectively find that kind of product so groundbreaking, intereresting and 'new', especially when compared to other successful franchises they have.

The Avengers, Ironman movies are pretty much all about bros and they're pretty successful franchises.

 

[fireproof78]

With respect

How did JJ n crew make Uhura part of big 3 in 1st two movies?

Please be concise and to the point

Because Uhura was the one who convinced Spock not to kill Khan, and was also a part of the away team to Kronos. She provided advice and key information to Kirk throughout, as well as emotional support to Spock.

She is often defined in surface level ways as "Spock's girlfriend" yet she is constantly demonstrating competencies in communications, language, combat, and standing up for her own skills. A character in her own right, stands out, even among Kirk and Spock's character growth.

 

[Malaika]

Because Uhura was the one who convinced Spock not to kill Khan, and was also a part of the away team to Kronos. She provided advice and key information to Kirk throughout, as well as emotional support to Spock.

She is often defined in surface level ways as "Spock's girlfriend" yet she is constantly demonstrating competencies in communications, language, combat, and standing up for her own skills. A character in her own right, stands out, even among Kirk and Spock's character growth.

Her character literally is the first one of the iconic crew that they introduce right after Kirk and Spock.
She intercepted and translated the message that set the main plot in motion in the first movie and, to quote Orci, it is her weighing in during the debate between Spock and Kirk in front Pike that persuades SPOCK to believe in Kirk's theory.

In tos an interpersonal relationship with the protagonist (Kirk) was the main narrative device used to 'elevate' both Spock and Mccoy to a 'trio' dynamic too. They were more prominent as characters than the other secondary characters because they were Kirk's friends.
The fact that Uhura is a different character compared to McCoy, with a different role (she's more the balance between Kirk's emotion and Spock's logic by having a bit of both, differently from tos McCoy who contrasted with Spock's logic and it was Kirk who acted as a 'bridge'), and who is part of the main 3 with different kind of relationships instead of being a 'bro', doesn't make it less a trio dynamic. There are other similar male-female-male trios from pop culture; it doesn't have to be just the typical bros dynamic to qualify as 'trio'.

It's kind of funny that some people want to deny there was a Kirk/Uhura/Spock trio NOW when trying to debunk the argument that Beyond essentially ignored that dynamic in favor of nostalgia, and thus sidelined Uhura.
It's ironic because there are people, in this board too, who had complained about this trek 'replacing McCoy with Uhura' for YEARS, and the same now praise Beyond for sidelining her to 'restore the original trio' stuff a bit.
Clearly, people noticed a change.. and if they noticed it that's because there was something to 'change', to begin with.

I suppose some may now try to pretend that being part of a trio is not important, or that they don't care about it, but that's very disingenuos when it's pretty obvious in those complains (including from Urban himself who completely minimized his whole character in the first movies, in spite of being still important, just because he wasn't part of the trio), and now praises for Beyond, that people perceive a trio dynamic as important, and thus the fact that Uhura may no longer be part of it is as much a 'downgrade' as it was for MCcoy fans when they complained about her 'replacing' him.

The Avengers, Ironman movies are pretty much all about bros and they're pretty successful franchises.

their Guardians of the Galaxy is also very successful, and it isn't just about 'bros'
and since we are at it with 'comparisions', I might accidentally mention that the latest "Wonder Woman" movie was everything but a 'bros' movie (if it had any) and it's holding better than any superhero movie in 15 years
There is more than a clue suggesting that modern audiences are a bit hungry for something different from the 'bros' formula, in spite of selectively still liking that genre in some movies (of course)

 

[F. King Daniel]

Screenrant seems to think JJ Abrams is breaking his Paramount contract by directing Star Wars IX.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Screenrant seems to think JJ Abrams is breaking his Paramount contract by directing Star Wars IX.

maybe Paramount were wanting him to direct ST4 as a boost to Trek after STB lower box office i.e. 'From the director of TFA'

 

[Malaika]

sure the politics behind these studios are complex and, in many ways, suck.

But at the same time I take it with a grain of salt... Maybe they wanted him to direct trek 4 indeed, but I feel like if a movie was already in the works he'd probably not accept to direct star wars because I think, in a way, directing star wars under the circumstances is a bigger risk while doing better than Beyond might be easier? (tho, it might also be scary to direct more trek movies precisely because of the expectation they must do better). I also remember JJ saying that the story they already had for trek 4 was his favorite so I suppose if the movie had any chance to get made in the near future, he'd like to have a role in the creative team be it as a director or writer or both.
Maybe, just maybe, him accepting to direct star wars could mean that a fourth movie for trek won't be made or won't be made for a 2019 release (hence, JJ may be able to still work on trek when sw is completed)

 

[Jedi_Master]

(Obligatory commentary about my personal perception of the previous nuTrek films mercifully erased because no one cares)
There is nothing, not one. single. thing. that prevents JJ Abrams from directing another Star Trek film. He could do it sooner, he could do it later, he could phone it in... there is a lot of options. The idea that he is doing one film during a period of time thus he cannot do a DIFFERENT film that doesn't have a start date for production, a script, or anything else is preposterous.

 

[pst]

(Obligatory commentary about my personal perception of the previous nuTrek films mercifully erased because no one cares)
There is nothing, not one. single. thing. that prevents JJ Abrams from directing another Star Trek film. He could do it sooner, he could do it later, he could phone it in... there is a lot of options. The idea that he is doing one film during a period of time thus he cannot do a DIFFERENT film that doesn't have a start date for production, a script, or anything else is preposterous.

well, for better or for worse, abrams seems to take his time with his films. he made super 8 between star trek and star trek into darkness which made the wait for the latter film longer than it should've been and (i think) blew the chances for the franchise to be a billion dollar one.

obviously there's not a lot of momentum after star trek beyond, but i really don't think the franchise can wait for abrams to develop and shoot episode IX. it's slated for release at the end of 2019, that means abrams would be working on the film pretty much up until then, placing any star trek film directed by him as far away as 2021. at the earliest.

i don't think the franchise can survive 5 years between films when 4 really hurt it.

 

[PixelMagic]

If Star Trek 4 is happening, they need to be filming by next summer. Pegg and Jung hinted at writing the script 9 months ago, and if they have been all this time, the script should be complete or near complete. Paramount may be waiting to see how Discovery is received. If bad, it may damage the Star Trek brand badly. If good, it might give Paramount the confidence to make another. I also suspect that Paramount has been ultra quiet about Trek 4 because they don't want to step on CBS's toes.

 

[pst]

Paramount may be waiting to see how Discovery is received. If bad, it may damage the Star Trek brand badly. If good, it might give Paramount the confidence to make another. I also suspect that Paramount has been ultra quiet about Trek 4 because they don't want to step on CBS's toes.

i hope you're right.

but yeah, if nobody watches discovery, i think that effectively kills the feature film franchise as well. i know i'm kicking this dead horse again (again), but why they couldn't get their corporate shiz together to make discovery connect in some way to the kelvin films - for synergy, for shared universe reasons - will never stop baffling me.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Star Trek 4 will be made if and when it is made. That timetable will depend on many, many factors... and may require a recast, new directors and creative team, what have you. When it comes out - I will go and see it.