Star Trek Movie Franchise

[mwynn]

Star Trek will soon have as many threads as Star Wars.

Simon Kinberg in Talks to Produce ‘Star Trek’ Movie Franchise for Paramount
Paramount is looking to the ‘X-Men’ producer to boldly go and relaunch the property on the big screen.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...0f0740c6f56c40

[levcore]

I think the Kelvin trilogy is superb entertainment, especially the first 2. I know JJ has his detractors but I think he knocked it out of the park. Great spectacular sci fi adventures imo.

I'm hopeful for the next movie, whatever it may be.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by levcore

I think the Kelvin trilogy is superb entertainment, especially the first 2. I know JJ has his detractors but I think he knocked it out of the park. Great spectacular sci fi adventures imo.

I'm hopeful for the next movie, whatever it may be.

This is still currently the next movie.

The project Kinberg would step into is already in very active development. Toby Haynes, who directed episodes of of the Star Wars series Andor, is on board to direct the new feature, with Seth Grahame-Smith writing the script. The project is said to be set decades before the events of the 2009 movie that was directed J.J. Abrams, likely around modern times. It is said to involve the creation of the Starfleet and humankind’s first contact with alien life.

[Moviefan2k4]

I saw the 2009 reboot only once, and was not impressed at all. JJ Abrams is a decent director, but at least from my perspective, it seems his approach wasn't right for Star Trek. I avoided both Into Darkness and Beyond, and I don't have any interest in another along that same line.

The previous history of the series is another story, though. I only saw reruns of The Original Series in passing, but The Next Generation was my main intro when I was just seven years old. I loved all the main characters, but my favorite was Data (and meeting Brent Spiner in 2008 remains a cherished memory for me). I skipped most of Deep Space Nine during its original run, though I did re-watch most of it when COVID hit and I had nothing else to do. As for Voyager, I liked it a great deal - the writers made some very bold choices, though I do think they relied on the Borg a little too much toward that show's end. Regarding Enterprise, I didn't like it overall, feeling it was too advanced for a show set in the days before Kirk's crew. I like Scott Bakula as an actor, but the rest never fell into place for me.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by mwynn

This is still currently the next movie.

The project Kinberg would step into is already in very active development. Toby Haynes, who directed episodes of of the Star Wars series Andor, is on board to direct the new feature, with Seth Grahame-Smith writing the script. The project is said to be set decades before the events of the 2009 movie that was directed J.J. Abrams, likely around modern times. It is said to involve the creation of the Starfleet and humankind’s first contact with alien life.

I'm not as big a continuity hound as I used to be, but this would be a bit nonsensical. According to the way the 2009 movie played out, the "Kelvin Timeline" didn't diverge from the "Prime" one until the birth of James Kirk. So the creation of Starfleet and first contact with aliens would be the same for both timelines, and this has already been well-documented by the franchise.

On the other hand, if they wanted to do a complete and total REBOOT with a capital "R," I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that. Some of established Trek history has already been overtaken by real-life history anway, so just starting over might not be such a bad idea.

But since studio heads tend not to understand the difference between a reboot and a prequel, (and since it doesn't look like the streaming franchise is going anywhere) we'll probably get a weird fusion of the two again.

[Poya]

Japan has Godzilla

UK has James Bond

We have Capt. Kirk. He deserves far better than this.

[kwisatzhaderach]

JJ Abrams... Alex Kurtzman... Simon Kinberg... it's like Paramount goes out of their way to find the person least possibly suited to making good Star Trek.

Ah well, 1966 - 1996 were good times.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I'm not as big a continuity hound as I used to be, but this would be a bit nonsensical. According to the way the 2009 movie played out, the "Kelvin Timeline" didn't diverge from the "Prime" one until the birth of James Kirk. So the creation of Starfleet and first contact with aliens would be the same for both timelines, and this has already been well-documented by the franchise.

On the other hand, if they wanted to do a complete and total REBOOT with a capital "R," I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that. Some of established Trek history has already been overtaken by real-life history anway, so just starting over might not be such a bad idea.

But since studio heads tend not to understand the difference between a reboot and a prequel, (and since it doesn't look like the streaming franchise is going anywhere) we'll probably get a weird fusion of the two again.

They could pretty much just say that once the time barrier was broken by the Narada rewrote the past, present and future. Or just have another trigger event in the past.

[RalphoR]

Love Star Trek and want it to continue. I just don't know where in the time-line this iteration exists and if they should reboot existing characters or just start with fresh ones. Regardless, I'm all in.

[John1701D]

I'm confused. Isn't this the same as this?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...highlight=trek

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by levcore

I think the Kelvin trilogy is superb entertainment, especially the first 2. I know JJ has his detractors but I think he knocked it out of the park. Great spectacular sci fi adventures imo.

I'm hopeful for the next movie, whatever it may be.

Me too - the third one was several steps down in quality but still doable. I think hardcore Trekkies are the ones that struggle with the new films the most.

The first two JJ films are excellent.

[John1701D]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Me too - the third one was several steps down in quality but still doable. I think hardcore Trekkies are the ones that struggle with the new films the most.

The first two JJ films are excellent.

Pretty hardcore here and I loved them. So

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Me too - the third one was several steps down in quality but still doable. I think hardcore Trekkies are the ones that struggle with the new films the most.

The first two JJ films are excellent.

It was the second one that bothered me the most. The story felt very thrown together, and I didn't like that after the Big Idea of creating an alternate timeline, they simply fell back on an old character that even casual fans thought had already been done pretty close to perfectly. The third one I liked quite a bit, actually.

To me Star Trek has always been about going forward, so I'm not super enthusiastic about even more prequels. For a long time, I felt that any new Trek series should progress the story further into the future. But then Discovery jumped so far into the future that it effectively made everything else a prequel.

So, I dunno. I try not to worry too much about "canon" and all, but it feels like the franchise's caretakers keep forcing the issue by always tying something directly into a previously established set of characters or events.

One of the reasons TNG became so iconic in its own right is that, with a handful of exceptions, it largely steered clear of direct tie-ins with the original series for the first few years. It was allowed to firmly establish its own identity.

The new shows vary in quality (some of what I've seen is not too bad), but they all feel like they're chasing something instead of forging their own path. (Though to be fair, I haven't seen much of Strange New Worlds yet; I've heard it's pretty good.)

I guess that's one reason I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to an all-out reboot. Rewrite the rules, reintroduce the characters in whatever way seems relevant to this era, and you don't have to shoehorn it into what's already been established.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by John1701D

I'm confused. Isn't this the same as this?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...highlight=trek

Yes, but this is to cover the entire franchise as it seems that want Simon to pretty much be a show runner.

[Mikezilla3k]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Star Trek will soon have as many threads as Star Wars.

Simon Kinberg in Talks to Produce ‘Star Trek’ Movie Franchise for Paramount
Paramount is looking to the ‘X-Men’ producer to boldly go and relaunch the property on the big screen.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...0f0740c6f56c40

I'm still confused when they say "prequel to 2009" like it's set in the Kelvin timeline. But that started in the first 3 minutes of 2009, everything before that is the original timeline too.

Also "It is said to involve...humankind’s first contact with alien life"? We already know and saw that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKGv6uvvQ4c

[drb999]

Yeah, I’m confused. Maybe it’s a complete reboot?

[D00mM4r1n3]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Me too - the third one was several steps down in quality but still doable. I think hardcore Trekkies are the ones that struggle with the new films the most.

The first two JJ films are excellent.

As a hardcore Trekkie the 3rd film is the only one I enjoyed and the only one that felt most like an episode of TOS (except for the climax.) The first 2, especially #2, are utter trash.

[John1701D]

Utter trash??

Beyond was the worst of the 3 but it was still "ok". The movies need to be more than just feature length episodes of TV. Insurrection was another example of this.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by John1701D

Utter trash??

Beyond was the worst of the 3 but it was still "ok". The movies need to be more than just feature length episodes of TV. Insurrection was another example of this.

I actually liked Insurrection, because like many TNG episodes it openly addressed a subject most people would care about: in this case, the forced relocation of one civilization to serve the selfish interests of another. The allegory was clearly there with the Federation higher-ups as examples of corrupt U.S. leaders, while the innocent Ba'ku civilians echoed the Natives of the 19th century. Picard's decision to go against his superiors could be seen as a reference to Cherokee chief John Ross, who was probably the biggest challenger to the Trail of Tears.

[John1701D]

Like or dislike wasn't really the point. Like "Beyond" it was an ok movie but it really felt like a long TV episode. It didn't feel special or theatrical to me.