Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2022 1:01:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by AQUA RAPTOR! on Feb 17, 2022 5:10:14 GMT 1
They're not that far from how old the original cast was when Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released in theaters in 1979.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 18, 2022 4:58:42 GMT 1
They're not that far from how old the original cast was when Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released in theaters in 1979. Are they doing a 4th with the Kelvin cast? Oh wait, I see it is a 4th. Wow that’s actually cool. I dig this series and would like them to keep going. And this may be a question best suited for Grandmaster, but can/should Trek attempt to venture into other territory such as different ships and styles of story?
|
|
|
Post by AQUA JAR!™ on Feb 18, 2022 21:09:26 GMT 1
"Even without any delays whatsoever, the 7 years dividing Star Trek: Beyond and Star Trek 4 represent the longest gap between movies featuring the same crew, smashing the 4-year record held by Insurrection/Nemesis and Star Trek/Star Trek Into Darkness."
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Feb 18, 2022 21:45:57 GMT 1
I'm afraid they will be too focused on bigger special effects and not focused enough on telling a compelling human story.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Feb 18, 2022 22:43:38 GMT 1
I'm afraid they will be too focused on bigger special effects and not focused enough on telling a compelling human story. The problem with modern Trek
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jun 10, 2022 3:05:23 GMT 1
Now, in an interview with Variety, Paramount film boss Brian Robbins has given an exciting update on Star Trek 4. Robbins confirmed that J.J. Abrams is still involved with the development of the franchise, and that the project is continuing to move in the right direction to begin its production. He also stated that he is “excited about where we’re going creatively” with Star Trek 4, indicating that the film could be a slight departure from what has come before. Check out his full comments below: "We’re deep into [Star Trek 4] with J.J. Abrams, and it feels like we’re getting close to the starting line and excited about where we’re going creatively. I’m a research nerd, and what the data tells me is that the audience wants [the cast of the firs three films] in this movie."
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Sept 28, 2022 22:54:25 GMT 1
It's been removed from the calendar after losing its director.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Oct 17, 2022 2:02:44 GMT 1
Now, Star Trek writers Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne reveal details about their scrapped script for Star Trek 4, per Variety. McKay and Payne reveal their Star Trek 4 would have reunited Pine and Hemsworth, as George Kirk gets stuck in a transporter that absorbs his "pattern," allowing him to be saved in a computer system later to be beamed out by his son, Captain Kirk. Check out McKay and Payne's ideas for Star Trek 4 below: I would love to tell you about it...We worked on a couple of Star Trek movies. The one you’re asking about would have been the fourth in the franchise, reuniting Chris Hemsworth and Chris Pine. The conceit was that through a cosmic quirk in the Star Trek world, they were the same age. It was going to be a grand father-son space adventure—think Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in space. We were really thrilled about it.screenrant.com/star-trek-chris-hemsworth-chris-pine-story-details/
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Mar 4, 2023 20:06:08 GMT 1
Chris Pine on the status: "I don't know anything," Pine admitted. "In Star Trek land, the actors are usually the last people to find out anything. I know costume designers that have read scripts before the actors... I would say it's frustrating. "It doesn't really foster the greatest sense of partnership, but it's how it's always been. I love the character. I love the people. I love the franchise. But to try to change the system in which things are created—I just can't do it. I don't have the energy." comicbook.com/startrek/news/star-trek-4-chris-pine-frustrated-no-plans-bad-timing-franchise/
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Aug 10, 2023 2:46:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Nov 26, 2023 17:50:32 GMT 1
Chris Pine has said he still hasn’t heard anything new about a fourth movie.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Dec 5, 2023 11:41:16 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 5, 2023 18:11:52 GMT 1
As right as Mr. Nimoy is, using his argument as the sole reason why some Star Trek fans haven't embraced Discovery or Picard is at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, disingenuous. Canon violations are a neat and pat rationale for why many fans lack enthusiasm for these shows. The truth is more complex and needs to be faced head-on; where Star Trek wants to take us today isn't very compelling.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Dec 5, 2023 18:43:30 GMT 1
As someone who isnt the biggest fan of Disco or Picard I do consider them to be Trek.
However they should go the way of SNW all though the first season was stronger then the second.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 5, 2023 21:56:15 GMT 1
As someone who isnt the biggest fan of Disco or Picard I do consider them to be Trek. However they should go the way of SNW all though the first season was stronger then the second. Ironically, the last truly great Star Trek story that has been told was with Abhams' Star Trek 2009. He gave the franchise the shot in the arm it needed. It was genius to destroy Romulus and turn that once all-powerful Star Empire, renowned for its calculation and precision, into a gang of rampaging, blue-collar malcontents (with a massive drill). It set the stage for Picard to have some compelling follow-up drama, but they missed the mark.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA CAT! on Dec 6, 2023 0:42:43 GMT 1
As someone who isnt the biggest fan of Disco or Picard I do consider them to be Trek. However they should go the way of SNW all though the first season was stronger then the second. I agree. I liked the second season but it's dipping into a format that's better suited to other shows. One of its original strengths was wrapping up its plot by the end of the episode. In today's television landscape, wrapping it up by the end is closer to its bygone format than its content if the content is spread out over series-long instead of episode long arcs. Today's format has 3-4 episodes at a time being like one long episode.
What made season 1 and most of season 2 feel refreshing is parsing the stories over less episodes. I don't mind exploring M'Benga and Chapel's trauma. I don't think it's a dip in quality, but it's a dip in the format that I think made it feel like old Trek. It's not a criticism, but more an observation that it seems the priority is switching developing plots to developing characters. Maybe it's a drawback of having limited plot to work with because the future's already decided, so you focus on characters instead.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Dec 6, 2023 0:49:46 GMT 1
As right as Mr. Nimoy is, using his argument as the sole reason why some Star Trek fans haven't embraced Discovery or Picard is at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, disingenuous. Canon violations are a neat and pat rationale for why many fans lack enthusiasm for these shows. The truth is more complex and needs to be faced head-on; where Star Trek wants to take us today isn't very compelling. We need freedom from rigid canon for creative purposes. I believe in letting the characters “tell” the story, not the archivists.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Dec 6, 2023 5:59:22 GMT 1
As right as Mr. Nimoy is, using his argument as the sole reason why some Star Trek fans haven't embraced Discovery or Picard is at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, disingenuous. Canon violations are a neat and pat rationale for why many fans lack enthusiasm for these shows. The truth is more complex and needs to be faced head-on; where Star Trek wants to take us today isn't very compelling. We need freedom from rigid canon for creative purposes. I believe in letting the characters “tell” the story, not the archivists. On this I totally agree but one can and must question the story being told and especially the format, esthetics and quality of it. And in both Disco and Picard.... those are not up to standard.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Dec 7, 2023 14:24:31 GMT 1
We need freedom from rigid canon for creative purposes. I believe in letting the characters “tell” the story, not the archivists. On this I totally agree but one can and must question the story being told and especially the format, esthetics and quality of it. And in both Disco and Picard.... those are not up to standard. Critiquing is fine, but most viewers are not “canon” bound. I haven’t seen Discovery as I left off the franchise after TNG ended. I did see season of Picard and enjoyed it, but wasn’t using my critical eye. But yeah, if a show sucks, I’m not a shrinking violet about my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Dec 7, 2023 14:30:02 GMT 1
As someone who isnt the biggest fan of Disco or Picard I do consider them to be Trek. However they should go the way of SNW all though the first season was stronger then the second. Ironically, the last truly great Star Trek story that has been told was with Abhams' Star Trek 2009. He gave the franchise the shot in the arm it needed. It was genius to destroy Romulus and turn that once all-powerful Star Empire, renowned for its calculation and precision, into a gang of rampaging, blue-collar malcontents (with a massive drill). It set the stage for Picard to have some compelling follow-up drama, but they missed the mark. I think they should reboot TNG as the next ST movie with a new, younger cast. They can line the narrative up better with the newer movies.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2023 17:20:09 GMT 1
As right as Mr. Nimoy is, using his argument as the sole reason why some Star Trek fans haven't embraced Discovery or Picard is at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, disingenuous. Canon violations are a neat and pat rationale for why many fans lack enthusiasm for these shows. The truth is more complex and needs to be faced head-on; where Star Trek wants to take us today isn't very compelling. We need freedom from rigid canon for creative purposes. I believe in letting the characters “tell” the story, not the archivists. I couldn't agree more. Story and characters trump lore and canon every time. In the 80s, renowned comic book artist and writer John Byrne made several changes to the origins and narrative of the Man of Steel. He drastically reduced Superman's power set as decades of storytelling had ballooned them to near-godlike levels. Byrne made it so that Superman never operated as Superboy, thus putting the storytelling focus on Superman's adult life. He changed the fate of Jonathan Kent so that he lived into Superman's adulthood to advise and guide him instead of dying in his youth. He also reimagined Krypton as a more cold and sterile alien world instead of the Earth-like proxy it had previously been portrayed as. The knee-jerk reaction from fans to these changes was as you'd expect: they were unhappy. Byrne's primary goal in changing Superman's established canon was streamlining decades of convoluted and contradictory silver-age stories and eliminating nonsensical and outdated tropes concerning Superman's supporting characters. As Byrne's run on the comic book progressed, people began to accept and even embrace the changes. I didn't agree with every change Byrne made (it didn't feel right that Superman was sent to Earth as a fetus instead of an infant), but I always trusted that he knew he was making a change and had some internal logic for doing so. Byrnes' approach to updating Superman's backstory was both thoughtful and compelling. It served a purpose by creating more compelling drama and correcting contradictory mythos elements. The changes being made to Star Trek's lore today are arbitrary, self-serving, and ultimately meaningless. They are more of an indictment of legacy Star Trek rather than a celebration of it. Based on the stories they create, modern Star Trek writers don't seem to see legacy Star Trek as progressive enough or, even worse, they might see it as wholely regressive. In contrast to Byrne's more thoughtful, holistic, and systematic approach to deviating from the established canon, Star Trek's changes are exploitative, contrarian, and sloppy. So, while we can't let canon dictate the creative process, we shouldn't just throw it by the wayside without asking ourselves why we are making the changes and how we should make them. You have to do your homework in both cases, which modern Star Trek creative teams have clearly not.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2023 17:28:30 GMT 1
On this I totally agree but one can and must question the story being told and especially the format, esthetics and quality of it. And in both Disco and Picard.... those are not up to standard. Critiquing is fine, but most viewers are not “canon” bound. I haven’t seen Discovery as I left off the franchise after TNG ended. I did see season of Picard and enjoyed it, but wasn’t using my critical eye. But yeah, if a show sucks, I’m not a shrinking violet about my opinion. Or, here is another idea: they could develop some entirely new characters and try telling original stories without leaning on legacy characters or launching another pointless reboot destined to fail after a sequel or two of diminishing returns.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 7, 2023 17:57:52 GMT 1
Critiquing is fine, but most viewers are not “canon” bound. I haven’t seen Discovery as I left off the franchise after TNG ended. I did see season of Picard and enjoyed it, but wasn’t using my critical eye. But yeah, if a show sucks, I’m not a shrinking violet about my opinion. Or, here is another idea: they could develop some entirely new characters and try telling original stories without leaning on legacy characters or launching another pointless reboot destined to fail after a sequel or two of diminishing returns. Exactly. How about a new age of exploration that begins after the end of the Dominion War and after Voyager has returned home? That way they are free to create any new thing they want without mucking up stuff that has already happened.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 7, 2023 17:59:50 GMT 1
We need freedom from rigid canon for creative purposes. I believe in letting the characters “tell” the story, not the archivists. I couldn't agree more. Story and characters trump lore and canon every time. In the 80s, renowned comic book artist and writer John Byrne made several changes to the origins and narrative of the Man of Steel. He drastically reduced Superman's power set as decades of storytelling had ballooned them to near-godlike levels. Byrne made it so that Superman never operated as Superboy, thus putting the storytelling focus on Superman's adult life. He changed the fate of Jonathan Kent so that he lived into Superman's adulthood to advise and guide him instead of dying in his youth. He also reimagined Krypton as a more cold and sterile alien world instead of the Earth-like proxy it had previously been portrayed as. The knee-jerk reaction from fans to these changes was as you'd expect: they were unhappy. Byrne's primary goal in changing Superman's established canon was streamlining decades of convoluted and contradictory silver-age stories and eliminating nonsensical and outdated tropes concerning Superman's supporting characters. As Byrne's run on the comic book progressed, people began to accept and even embrace the changes. I didn't agree with every change Byrne made (it didn't feel right that Superman was sent to Earth as a fetus instead of an infant), but I always trusted that he knew he was making a change and had some internal logic for doing so. Byrnes's approach to updating Superman's backstory was both thoughtful and compelling. It served a purpose by creating more compelling drama and correcting contradictory elements. The changes being made to Star Trek's lore today are arbitrary, self-serving, and ultimately meaningless. They are more of an indictment of legacy Star Trek rather than a celebration of it. Based on the stories they create, modern Star Trek writers don't seem to see legacy Star Trek as progressive enough or, even worse, they might see it as wholely regressive. In contrast to Byrne's more thoughtful, holistic, and systematic approach to deviating from the established canon, Star Trek's changes are exploitative, contrarian, and sloppy. So, while we can't let canon dictate the creative process, we shouldn't just throw it by the wayside without asking ourselves why we are making the changes and how we should make them. You have to do your homework in both cases, which modern Star Trek creative teams have clearly not. As I was reading your discussion of Superman, I was planning to explain to you how that was totally different from Star Trek, but then you did that yourself. You dodged a bullet.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Dec 7, 2023 20:17:40 GMT 1
Critiquing is fine, but most viewers are not “canon” bound. I haven’t seen Discovery as I left off the franchise after TNG ended. I did see season of Picard and enjoyed it, but wasn’t using my critical eye. But yeah, if a show sucks, I’m not a shrinking violet about my opinion. Or, here is another idea: they could develop some entirely new characters and try telling original stories without leaning on legacy characters or launching another pointless reboot destined to fail after a sequel or two of diminishing returns. But this has been done since Tarzan, James Bond and the original ST characters. Like everything in these saturated genres, it’s too much content to keep the quality up and for the viewers to keep up with. And the run their course. It becomes noise after a while. Even so, I’m looking forward to GM’s Trek project. I may only make the original series, but I got stories to tell. When it was Coke or Pepsi, life was simple.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2023 21:39:35 GMT 1
Or, here is another idea: they could develop some entirely new characters and try telling original stories without leaning on legacy characters or launching another pointless reboot destined to fail after a sequel or two of diminishing returns. But this has been done since Tarzan, James Bond and the original ST characters. Like everything in these saturated genres, it’s too much content to keep the quality up and for the viewers to keep up with. And the run their course. It becomes noise after a while. Even so, I’m looking forward to GM’s Trek project. I may only make the original series, but I got stories to tell. When it was Coke or Pepsi, life was simple. There's no such thing as too much content when it's all good and serves a purpose. At one point in the '90s, there were up to two first-run Star Trek shows on the air simultaneously, along with the syndicated original series, and exactly no one said this was too much content. Each Star Trek show of the era had a premise that more than justified its existence and produced quality storytelling. Deep Space Nine up-ended the status quo for a Star Trek show by setting the drama on a stationary space station instead of a moving starship. Could a beleaguered widower and single parent keep the peace among warring factions on a space station that had suddenly become the most valuable piece of real estate in the galaxy? Voyager explored the scenario of a Federation starship lost in an unexplored region of space without the support of the Federation or the Star Fleet command hierarchy. Could Federation values hold up in a largely lawless region of space without forcing the Captain and her crew into dire comprises? Why does Discovery exist thematically? To introduce a previously unknown, adopted older sister to a well-established legacy character? The only reason to do that is so that the less recognizable characters can glom off of the more recognizable character's built-in equity. It adds nothing new to the Star Trek legacy and only serves to disrupt and muddle previously established and very well-received stories.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Dec 8, 2023 7:28:39 GMT 1
But this has been done since Tarzan, James Bond and the original ST characters. Like everything in these saturated genres, it’s too much content to keep the quality up and for the viewers to keep up with. And the run their course. It becomes noise after a while. Even so, I’m looking forward to GM’s Trek project. I may only make the original series, but I got stories to tell. When it was Coke or Pepsi, life was simple. There's no such thing as too much content when it's all good and serves a purpose. At one point in the '90s, there were up to two first-run Star Trek shows on the air simultaneously, along with the syndicated original series, and exactly no one said this was too much content. Each Star Trek show of the era had a premise that more than justified its existence and produced quality storytelling. Deep Space Nine up-ended the status quo for a Star Trek show by setting the drama on a stationary space station instead of a moving starship. Could a beleaguered widower and single parent keep the peace among warring factions on a space station that had suddenly become the most valuable piece of real estate in the galaxy? Voyager explored the scenario of a Federation starship lost in an unexplored region of space without the support of the Federation or the Star Fleet command hierarchy. Could Federation values hold up in a largely lawless region of space without forcing the Captain and her crew into dire comprises? Why does Discovery exist thematically? To introduce a previously unknown, adopted older sister to a well-established legacy character? The only reason to do that is so that the less recognizable characters can glom off of the more recognizable character's built-in equity. It adds nothing new to the Star Trek legacy and only serves to disrupt and muddle previously established and very well-received stories. Sigh
|
|