Scrap everything and start over. And, remember what Star Trek actually is. You know that script that you threw out because it was "too Star Trek-y"? You need to be Star Trek-y. You're Star Trek.
Guruthos Amarthruin Or, you know, just STOP. Create something new that fits our era rather than recycle last century's leftovers. Will it be hard? Hell yes. Will it be a guaranteed hit? Hell no. But this is obviously not working over the long term. It's become the business equivalent of steroids.
Tim Krigers Given that The Orville was meant to be a new Star Trek series that CBS rejected, that's actually not too insane, actually. The insane part is that after it was rejected, McFarlane went ahead and did it anyway, and it's a bigger hit with Trekkies than STD will ever be.
As an older Star Trek fan, I'm ambivalent overall about about Kelvin timeline movies. The best thing I can say about them is I enjoyed the casting choices. Pine, Saldana and Pegg were certainly appealing in their interpretations of Kirk, Uhura and Scotty. But Zachary Quinto's Spock and especially Karl Urban's McCoy were simply outstanding. I can't imagine wanting to see a Kelvin timeline movie without those two actors in it. And as long as I'm talking about Karl Urban, can someone please, please make a Dredd sequel?
The Kelvinverse movies have better actors, bigger budgets, better effects, and worse storytelling and worldbuilding than the original Star Trek. The original series was hard enough SF that they had companies contacting them to ask how they'd got hold of their secret prototypes, or how they'd solved particular technical issues, and original characters who'd earned their positions by long service and hard work. Star Trek 09 takes a star fleet cadet who, under other circumstances, could have grown into a legendary captain, decides that nature trumps nurture because he's got the right name, and skips him past a couple of decades of seasoning to give him a position that the original Kirk only got, arguably after Star Trek IV. Not only that, but a circle of cadets and disgraced personnel who are also, apparently, chosen by Destiny, get given the jobs as his bridge crew and command staff because they happen to have the right names. Apparently in the Kelvin timeline, rather than postings being temporary and based on rank and seniority, and people moving between various positions within the crew during the course of their career, you get a job for life as soon as you leave the academy, and have no career path whatsoever... So, yeah, I'd have loved to see a well-written movie with this cast.
Agree with your thoughts about the casting decisions. Zachary Quinto being cast as Spock is I think one of the best casting decisions in science fiction movies in the last twenty years. And Karl Urban was great as Bones. Urban was also fantastic as Dredd, however in the Dredd film, a lot of the 'other world' elements written in the comics (off-world colonies, mutants, etc) were missing from the storyline, and I hope that a lot more elements from the comics are included in any TV or Netflix series that they might make, and presented as realistically as possible.
Look up Star Trek Continues here on RUclips. One of the best fan-made series ever, faithful to the original material and extraordinarily high quality stories. I absolutely love it.
Man I really miss the days of TNG and DS9. I miss Picard asking for Tea Earl Grey hot. I miss Quark and his shenanigans and getting into trouble with Odo. I miss Worf complaining about the lack of honor his foes have. Hell I even miss Captain Janeway deleting a fictional character's wife so she could bed him.
And Voyager, and Enterprise. But that was back when syndicated SF was coming to a close and UPN needed Star Trek to stay afloat. They burned out the audience with too much of it.
I loved Voyager back in the day too. I got into it before I discovered DS9. It wasn't until years later I came to realised how flawed it was at times, I mean I never even questioned the episode "threshold" when I first saw it. Entreprise on the other hand I never really saw. The idea of a prequel series didn't really appeal to me so you can imagine how frustrated I was when I heard about Discovery. At this point all I really want a follow up series to DS9.
Well at least there IS DS9 follow up "fan produced" (with the best original writers) being produced right now. Who knows when it will be actually released - but the funding is all there and it's in process. So we'll get to see somewhat of a DS9 one-shot...
Enterprise was never a real Trek show. It violated continuity left and right then tried to force it back in during the 4th season. Berman and Braga had so little respect for Trek fans they thought we would take everything given us without question if it had the Trek label on it. Fans were leaving it in droves each year, and as a result, advertisers grew increasingly skittish about buying air time. ENT was such a failure that it couldn't get the seven season deal that became the standard since the start of TNG. And before you bring up TOS or TAS, those were on the big three networks. And sci-Fi almost NEVER does well on network. ENT couldn't hack it even with Paramount's very own network behind it. Voyager was bad, but even THAT managed to get all seven seasons. ENT even started out not being called Star Trek
I've seen quite a few Chris Pine interviews and get the feeling that he's a fairly easy going guy. They must have pissed him off royally for him to walk off like that.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 It also appears they were asking him to take a pay cut and as long as he can get other work there's no reason for him to essentially give a corporation money without getting anything in return, like a greater share of ticket sales.
@@JohnSmith-zl1tr Except taking a pay cut is NOT giving the corporation money. The pay cut was in line with the budget of the proposed movie. Considering the box office droped from one to tw. Droped again from two to three. That part three actaully lost money. I am surprised anyone was willing to finance part 4 at all.It was either take a pay cut. Or have no movie at all. He choose wrong. As to geting greater share of ticket sales LOL not going to happen.
JJ Abrams most certainly was NOT a Star Trek fan. He said so during an interview with John Stewart. (To which Stewart responded, "I stopped listening after you said you weren't a Star Trek fan, and am going to assume everything you said after that was an apology.") This is why Abrams Trek movies are so brain dead. He didn't like the original because it was too cerebral so he dumbed Star Trek down to something he did like.
He said the same things in the documentary that Gene Roddebberry's son did about Star Trek. And then what makes it worse, like insult to injury, that Gene's son was never into Star Trek and was a Star Wars fan too
@@ghost7524 when your Born into privilege, you don't know what it's like to have to work for something. Me personally, I had to put money away just to buy a 30 yr comic I've wanted for a long time the younger generations will never know that
Unfortunately, the studios and directors are more worried over how many NEW people will watch the movies (aka: children and YOUNG adults), that they forego telling good, compelling stories with exceptional acting, opting instead to throw together crappy, politically charged, after-school-special feeling 'movies', that lack any good writing, directing, or acting. I agree that Urban and the majority of the cast of JJ-verse did an admirable job with what they had, but the stories and directing left much to be desired. The execs are so worried about 'bringing in new blood' into the fan-base, that they fail to actually listen to the fans that are already out there, and what the older series actually were about. And, along those lines, the current generation are growing up with - and expecting - fast produced, action-heavy, farcical 'humor'-laced, politically-charged and -laced, movies, that HAVE to make some kind of political statement (especially when it comes to women's lib (The Last Jedi, etc), or having to do with lgbt issues (Sulu in Star Trek - which George Takei was most decidedly NOT happy with, despite his openly being so)), and so they will not even look (in most cases) at anything that doesn't conform to those criteria. Heck, I can't count the number of co-workers that I talked to that told me that they have never watched anything older than when they were born, or the prequels and JJ-verse movies are what they grew up with, so they feel that they are the better of the series. TOS was about addressing the political-sociological concerns of the time (war, bigotry, equality, patriotism, religion, etc), as were the movies (mostly). TNG continued that trend to a large degree, though they started throwing in more episodes that fit the criteria of 'just a good story'. DS9 went a little farther afield still, and Voyage yet again. By the time of Enterprise, and now the Abrams reboots, Discovery, and the other 'official' products, most of these precepts have been abandoned in favor of an action-packed, political-statement laden product, that isn't worth the film it's recorded on.
Actually no, Star Trek movies are always more action focused. It's a TV show so the movies need to be different or they'll just be classed as feature-length episodes and rated poorly.
I quit spending money on anything Star Trek related (film and merchandise) ever since they cracked down on the fan productions . Star Trek Continues is way more true to the show and its fans than any of the official crap the studios have been putting out.
and Renegades actually got significant number of past cast members to return only to be forced to drop the Trek branding and ultimately kill off most of them.
Stimulator7, YES ALL the fan films being released on RUclips had to DROP ALL references to Trek from there names, reshoot parts or voice over any reference to the Federation and all this other shit that just made them look like random low budget scifi shit.
While it was stupid as all get out for the Renegades Project to start running crowdfunding campaigns for an IP that they didn't own, Star Trek Continues and the other Fan productions were keeping up the good will that the base support had for the franchise. I loved STC, it was made by people who understood Star Trek for people who actually liked Star Trek for what it was. I understand why the studios did what they did, but it completely killed my enthusiasm for anything they were doing with the franchise.
Greenspud Trades I agree fucking greedy CBS bastards! These idiots think 3 stick and a frisbee id owned by them ! These idiots don't realize change the designs by 10% call it flopy wrek CBS has no fucking legal say !
I've been a big fan for decades and I've sadly witnessed Paramount et al shooting themselves in the foot because they "just don't get it". They never understood Star Trek and it seems as though they never will. 50 years ago, Roddenberry had these same arguments as he tried to convince the bigshots that a "cerebral" script is better than monsters, rayguns and explosions. It is incredible that after all this time, the studios still don't "get it". One can just look at Star Trek CONTINUES to see that the original concept is still viable and Trek films can be made on a budget. Star Trek Continues is terrific. Why not just invest some money in those people and have them come up with ST4? Get out of their way and they will create a wonderful film that the fans will love.
In addition to monsters, rayguns and explosions, big names are not needed. There are many talented actors who aren't widely known (and will work demanding schedules for less)
Thank you for the very insightful video. I am a diehard trekker, and to be honest, to have someone say a director was fired because the script was too Star Trekky is exactly why they failed. I sat through the absolutely terrible first movie and was never able to watch 2 and 3 even when they come on TV. JJ Abrams and Paramount absolutely gutted a classic by not understanding what Gene Roddenberry had created. That's just too disheartening.
Rob, I can't emphasize enough how important these corporate movie making dissections are. I have been watching all the vids and have had my eyes opened. You guys, Andre especially, are doing a huge service for fandom and the general public by reporting and discussing these topics in the style and focus that you do. I caught last-nights, a commenter questioned the reporting on Star Trek on your live stream. The thing is, everything you have been reporting even a year ago, has all come to pass. You guys should've pointed the troll to the vids you made last year, where all of this was not only reported and explained, but rumors about the coming debacle and direction of STD were all true. You guys put it together before anyone and it is a shining example of the excellent reporting and research Andre requires before anything is put in a video for public consumption. You guys are singular and special among all the noise and spin that hits everyone in this digital age. I do miss your original tune at the beginning of videos, but that's because it gives me the nostalgia from the Trank-gate days of your channel. But I digress. Thanks again Rob. Your radio voice makes all the info your lay out easy to consume and understand. Subbed
SquawkCode VR This, my friend, is what authentic journalism looks like in practice: gather your information, verify it to the best of your ability and only publish what you can prove. Internet commentators could learn from this.
The big problem with the Kelivn timeline, as far as art is concerned, is that consequences don't exist in these movies. Here are some examples: Vulcan was blown up. Result: Spock briefly complains about it in Into Darkness to win an argument with Uhura. The Enterprise crashes in Into Darkness. Result: They just get Enterprise A in Beyond. Since that ship crashed too, they'll probably get another Enterprise. Three movies in and they're up to Enterprise-B. Scotty invents inter-system transporter technology in 09. Result: Khan only uses it to transport a bomb and get away from Earth. Starfleet does not ever take advantage of Iconian-tier technology. Kirk is demoted back to cadet for saving Spock's life in Into Darkness. Result: Kirk gets demoted to commander because Pike likes him. Kirk's away team and Khan shoot up a Klingon patrol on Q'onos. Result: The Klingons do not invade Earth for no reason. The entire Admiralty Board is dead in Into Darkness. Result: Starfleet functions just fine in Beyond. Deus Ex Machina Blood. Result: What Deus Ex Machina blood? When consequences don't matter in a story, it's impossible to stay invested. Your suspension of disbelief gets broken constantly and you stop paying attention. That's when you start Pinkett-ing the movie you're watching, seeing how it fails. Thus, the Kelvin brand did not sell. People didn't believe in it. They don't believe in its characters. They don't believe in the setting (Nokia). TOS with its pneumatic tube technology is more believeable because you believe in the characters and the setting. Characters act like professionals in Prime Star Trek. That's not the case in Kelvin or ST:D.
Alex The Enterprise A was the ship they were building at the end of Beyond. The NCC 1701 was was the same ship through all three movies until it was totally destroyed in Beyond. I absolutely agree with the rest though. I wonder if this new Picard series will address Romulus being destroyed.
Ron Volkert I think his point is that the E got so shot up in STID that it essentially had to be rebuilt, and the ship that warps out at the end and the one we see in beyond is different from the original. So technically it's accurate: the 09 enterprise was refit into a new ship by beyond, and then that ship was destroyed outright. You keep destroying the Enterprise, you make it less special
Personally i think it would be funnier if the prime timeline completely ignores the kelvin timeline. make it clear that Romulus is fine and well, and that Spoke died of old age in the timeline. Keep them separate.
Let's not forget the incredible folly that was recasting the original crew, who is not just iconic to the franchise, but iconic tot he medium of television and movie in a way not too many other achieve. That's bananas. And it leads to situations like the one we have here. I'd virtually guarantee longevity and shared history, if not actual friendship, was the reason so many original cast movies got made so long after the series had been cancelled. The new cast did not have this legacy together and have no real reason to feel fealty to the brand beyond their paychecks. Ergo Pine's childish "I'm not a big enough millionaire so BLAH" move. When a member of the original character roster either dies or quits...your narrative is just plain screwed! If these had been original characters you could just write it off as "oh, he died. That's what happens in this story". But we know when Kirk is supposed to die. We know what happened to Scotty and Bones. We know original Chekove could technically still appear in a star trek movie if the studios really wanted him to. None of that syncs up in the Kelvin timeline at this point and fans won't be okay with it. You cannot bottle lightning twice. Most people can't even do it once. Recasting the original crew was a disastrous idea from the very beginning.
Baldr's Dreams Very true. STD excerbates this problem even more by running a third Pike and Spock instead of getting Greenwood (?) and Quinto back so at least people who like the Kelvin movies have someone to latch onto. Instead Kurtzman is anti-catering to the audience willing to pay for CBS All Access.
Everything JJ touches these days dies, I call it like I see it a real shame too I'm a bigtime Star Trek & Star Wars fan and both of these franchises have fallen on their faces and I don't know if they can be salvaged...... (Wow that was hard to say as a true fan)
Star Trek has a history of mediocre to crappy entries...and it bounces back...it can be salvaged. Star Wars went from amazing without exception to utter crap....again without exception...so its done for good...at least where quality is concerned.
The cable TV channel Icons and Heroes runs 5 hours of Star Trek every weekday starting at 6pm! The show an episode of all the good series (Yes, including Enterprise, I know some don't like it, but the Klingons looked like Klingons so in my mind it counts). They show Voyager, DS9, TNG, Enterprise, TOS, and even some of the animated series. H&I is a great channel and comes with the basic package (where I am).
Funny, I didn't think about it that way; that the decline of society would be directly paralleled by the decline of Star Trek. But it's certainly worth mentioning. The Tea Party has been quite successfull in substituting science and future with fairytales and faith.
ratatatuff It is not just one political party or one group that's shifting the nation's view of the future towards dystopian. The irrational fear of nuclear power, vaccine, GMO, autonomous vehicle, AI and the realization of overpopulation, climate change, race war, water war could be upon us make the entire society fear the future. We can see the popularity of dystopian dramas and the waning of hard Sci-Fi as a symptoms of this outlook.
Star Trek fans, the ones who love the original Gene Roddenberry canon, are the people Paramount and CBS must cater to and appease. We have stayed with the series and films since the beginning, and we are the ones who purchase merchandise and have kept what Gene created alive. No supposed "new fans" exist and are not really interested in Star Trek and its legacy. Trying to reinvent Trek and making it some generic style bland science fantasy films or series, will never work and always fail. Until CBS and Paramount cater to true fans, they will lose money and their "products" will fail.
As hard as it is to hear, this demographic you just mentioned constitutes a tiny percentage of moviegoers such a studio needs to attract. Whilst the only bastions of Trek are the poorly concieved STD and the Star-Wars-ised Kelvin movies, there will be no newcomers to the 'good Trek' fanbase, outside of nerdy kids already into sci-fi. This decline had already set in with ENT, which is still miles better than STD.
Really?!?! Into Darkness underperformed due to loss of momentum? Uh no... it's because they took the greatest Trek movie/story arc of all time and shat all over it.
I never was that impressed with the whole Khan thing, either in the original series or this new reboot. The publicly stated point of the new universe reboot was to do new things with the star trek franchise....then they make another movie about fricken Khan. What's the point? So I chose to save my money from then on. I didnt want to see the original ST movies being rehashed with some characters swapped and some Shamylam--esque twist.
Star Trek Beyond was trapped between horrible preview trailers and a tragically awful Fake Kahn Darkness. It never stood a chance. It was the first of the "new" movies that I actually liked.
@@mabusestestament "Wasn't that good"? That's not what I've been hearing. I hear it's the best of the reboot films and the one that feels the most like Star Trek. And quality doesn't always correlate to financial success, or vice versa. Even really good movies flop.
Star Trek IV: A Voyage Home is one of my favorite Star Trek movies, and there's almost nothing to it. Most of the film is them walking around present day. Filmmakers have lost sight of what actually makes a good movie I think.
Agreed! Fewer special effects, fewer new technology, just a very good, very funny and intriguing story with an interesting moral at the end. I absolutely loved it, and never really thought about the fact that it really wasn't special effect heavy. Good insightful comment anyhow. Now I'll have to go watch that one again on VHS! ;)
Voyage Home had something most movies today don't have: great writing. Tarantino might be able to write something decent but not sure how it needs an R rating unless he adds a lot of swearing and blood spray.
If Paramount had 2 brain cells to rub together they would hire the fan film people to make high quality low budget Star Trek movies and fire Bad Robot all together. Axanar is exactly what the fan base wanted and Paramount needs to turn a high profit on a low budget and have fandom itself promoting the movies and media. This franchise has a goldmine in all the fan fiction sets and fan knowledge and should be making a fortune catering to the core fan base and expanding outward. This is simply not possible with the flawed idea of making Star Trek movies as old fashioned science fantasy blockbusters. It is time for new thinking on this subject from forward looking visionaries to come into managing this franchise.
That is what makes the least since. Are no NuTrek products and no profits for the studio or the investor. The only profit is for Bad Robot to be paid in advance to make these. Everyone else is losing and Paramount is all but Bankrupt and screaming for income. If they do not turn this around they will end up being liquidated.
mrparanormalmobius I dont agree man, they've got so many liberal PC reboots and remakes in the works, and a targeted PC audience to give a care about the old fans. The last jedi for example turned over a nice profit for Disney. As much as people bitch, they can keep making these, or just tank this franchise and start over. Look at STD ans cbs all access. It's gotten another seadon green light and a deal for 4 more new SJW star trek shows. Tarantino is doing a star trek too. It's pretty fucked unless a conservative comes along like me who directs things right. What's very sad is that Rick Berman pretty much gave up on star trek during Enterprise. Nemesis was good and the canon fans too harsh, like they were with Lucas. So basicly hollywood can keep destroying franchises and the next generation of sheep and zombies will eat it up. Why do people pay to get all access, or paid to go see more Abrams movies?
Ha, so they rejected a script for being too "star trekky" but they're surprised the fans didn't show up? And what's this bs about it being "well received" by fans? We all know the critics are pretend fans who basically work for the studio, The movie failed, the fans hated it. The end
I've heard Tom say in a stream that he likes Into Darkness. I don't know why because the flaws of that movie are so apparent, but I won't say people don't genuinely like that movie. I just think they weren't paying attention to what was happening on screen. Everyone points to how Kirk & Spock don't know who Khan is, but they always miss the bigger problem with that scene: why would Kirk believe Khan in the first place? To recap, after Khan is arrested by Kirk, Kirk goes to speak with him. Kirk is seething mad at Khan for gunning down Pike and the Admiralty Board. Kirk hates Khan. After Khan makes his reveal, Khan gives Kirk a series of coordinates to Admiral Robocop's secret base. Next scene, Kirk calls Scotty on a Nokia flip phone to check out those coordinates for him. Why would Kirk look into the coordinates? Because plot. That's really the problem with Into Darkness. It's not the pointless references or the outright lies to preserve the mystery box or Alice Eve in her underwear (that's actually wonderful). It's as Jay from RLM said, the plot is contrived from the start. The only reason people like it is because those lens flares make everything shiny and chrome, so general audiences don't notice the flaws in the movie.
I like aspects tbf, but I argue it wouldn't have been AS bad as it was had they NOT had it be Khan, and just a new villain. I totally understand why people don't like it though. As a Star Trek movie it's horrible I aknowledge that (-Tom)
of the Kelvin timeline, 3 was hands down the best one, it's the only one that despite continuity issues I had with it (the Yorktown was a SHIP not a fucking spacestation and why the fuck did they have to make Sulu gay? even George Takei said that was dumb) I actually enjoyed watching.
I am a long term Star Trek fan, which I enjoyed before way before Star Wars even existed. It was corporate greed that created the mistaken expectation it work out as a big tent pole big dumb action franchise like Star Wars. It was about a team of friends who worked together to think solutions to their problems, who were intelligent. Also, instead of a reboot, why not try something new, something set after Star Trek: Voyager? Find some script writers to come up with a trilogy of movies, hire some undiscovered new actors with a set contract for three films. film all three at the same time, then release them Lord of the Rings style. Script is more important than the director. Star Trek fans want a Star Trek-y movie, not a Star Wars movie.
agreed. They need to go further into the future. The New Patrick series might be the right direction. Introduce new characters, new aliens, new planets, exploration. Stop rebooting everything, it never works. The new TV show is miserable for that very reason, another reboot, it's technology even the ship itself makes NO sense in the Trek timeline. They have tech Kirk didn't have and they are years before?!?!? It's shattering the Trek timeline AGAIN. I'm not even commenting on the horrible lead character. Someone slap whoever is in charge. You can't rewrite Trek...can't do it. Too much history, will piss off too many fans, move forward, something new.
I've sometimes thought going into the past might be cool; showing the battle of Axenar; the early years of the UFP; Garth, Pike and Garrovick (Kirk's first CO) as friends...you definitely get a quality trilogy out of that. If going into the future, maybe look at the eventual arrival of the Kelvans from Andromeda (q.v. "By Any Other Name"), and how a certain faction among them still want to conquer the Milky Way. Anyway, good comment and I heartily agree.
@@Chu3505 And you're in the wrong fandom if you think saying that isn't going to get you lynched. The Abrams series is a travesty and should never have happened. Discovery and Picard are Star Trek in the 21st century. Star Trek, Into Darkness, and Beyond are collectively an abortion.
@@MarkTuson You are just some old lonely weebs who cant accept some new stuff and wont see that the new Star Trek movies are not bad. Also Picard is really cool so far
I saw the very first Star Trek episode the night it aired and was hooked from the start! I've loved all the Trek series, but the movies a little less. When Star Trek with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto premiered, I was wowed by how much the actors resembled the original characters and loved the movie, but the two subsequent movies were not only too far from the original Roddenberry canon and timeline but there was too much emphasis on spectacular explosions and not enough on character development. Special effects are fun but it's Gene Roddenberry's hopeful vision of the future that breathed life into the series and kept it going for all these years.
They show the digitally mastered original series on Horror Channel everyday here and it's so dated now. They also show TNG, Voyager and Enterprise after each end their runs and it's surprising how modern TNG still feels today!
I grew up.on the original series but this last show by CBS sucks and not a fan of the Kelvin since it retreads old plots but would enjoy it if they made a time travel with characters from.each show
I can’t believe Paramount had the balls to go ask CBS to pull the plug on their merch so Paramount can promote its’ merch... There’s a certain level of arrogance to it that makes me really hope CBS responded by giving them two middle fingers while laughing them out of their offices.
As if that was going to make a difference, unlike marketing idiots who think people are buffoons, in reality people clearly are perfectly capable of differentiating between toy lines, and eliminating one isn't going to make people buy the other.
A Star Trek movie "too Star Trekkie"? No wonder this production was so troubled from the beginning with two competing parent companies to answer to. Bad call on CBS's part.
Someone once told me in all seriousness that "Bad Star Trek is better than no Star Trek". I replied that the moment they realized that we'd settle for bad Star Trek, that's all they would ever give us. It appears that I may have been right.
Henglaar Yeah, I'd rather have no Trek than bad Trek as well. We've got decades of good movies and shows to fall back on, no need for the series to be dragged through the mud.
Yeah but we weren't getting good Trek. There still hasn't been a single production since 2002 that has advanced the story. Nothing but reboots and prequels.
The sad thing is it costs more to make the bad Star Trek; they're not doing it to save money, which I could understand, they're doing it because they don't know how to make the good stuff. Probably because they didn't grow up with it.
Sam Rhodes Yeah, but you'd think that executives would eventually learn that bad products tend not to sell nearly as well as well made products. They may not care about quality for the sake of quality but putting out a product no one wants hurts your bottom line.
Quantity gets them paid, they will give you just enought to keep you coming back. They then repeat that effect of nostalgia over and over and take your money. Quality simply is not profitable.
Let's define "Quality": Quality in TOS and TNG is the story line, the message embedded in them; you do not need fancy expensive actors either, both TOS and TNG casts started with onknwon actors, their success was the message in their scripts
Trek was initially about exploring strange new things, weird planets, strange cultures. I think all the Kelvin Timeline movies have taken place largely on Earth. What is an exploration vessel doing so close to home all the time? TOS was always on the edge of known space, too far out for a rescue ship. The brilliance of the story was that you never knew what was around the next star system. Kelvin is just contant combat with the next baddie of the week (or shall I say "decade"). All the wonder and beauty is gone, replaced by torpedoes. Remember TOS episodes like "The Empath". I don't think a weapon was fired in that whole episode. Remember "Arena" where Kirk spared the enemy because his mission wasn't conquest: it was seeking out new civilizations. Trek is not a comic book.
And kirk spearing an enemy or weapons not being fired the whole movie would bring into the office box even less than these ones did because the generation today that loves marvel movies doesn't care two shits about some badly cgi'd alien race or space that isn't dynamic..you have to understand, back then television, theater, and comics were the only places of wonder...today you have so many mediums that allow you to explore the new spaces yourself like in video games, and even create races and vessels you want to create....the wonders of the past are today either all available or obsolete, so don't expect things like star wars or star trek to gain the popularity they once did...these things are like terminator, relics from a different time and for a different generation.
@@DevinMacGregor Yes it has, the beginning of Star Trek 3 he says it's been almost 3 years into the 5 year mission and at the end of Star Trek 2 is when they start the 5 year mission
I bought Beyond on iTunes - its sitting there on my desktop - watched it once. - Who thought that combining Star Trek with Fast & the Furious would be a good idea.
You can sum up the problem with Hollywood's modern attitude with 2 things you mentioned. 1. 'too star treky' in a star trek movie. they want the fans of the universe but want to throw out its lore. Not happening. 2. if it doesn't sell we have to take away all the stuff the fans want so they have to buy ours instead. Funny Star Wars / LFL tried that -dropping prequel and limiting original trilogy let alone the old Expanded Universe stuff thinking it would make sequel stuff sell more. Result: TLJ toys that Toys R Us and other retailers couldn't give away. Simple fact: no matter what the franchise if you move in and think you can alter and reboot without losing original fans you are wrong. They will not follow you, and you can't make them buy the product. If you take away what they like they'll find another franchise to follow and spend that money on. I spent a fortune on Star Wars, I also have a lot of Star Trek. NONE of it is the new stuff. I have no problem with the actors of either: but I will not reward companies with my money for DECONSTRUCTING what were essentially our modern myths and taking the joy out of them. If you don't care about the old fans opinions then you shouldn't expect their money!
codyw1 You mean people actually liked the original Who? I tried to watch it but It reminded me of a high school play filmed on VHS tape.. To each his own I guess. And those darleks with the toilet bowl plungers as hands, really?:-) :-) :-)
And this is coming from someone who likes the original Star Trek, I presume? lols Glass houses and all that... Classic Who got by on great writing, not something there's been much of in its hideous SJWed modern incarnation.
What you write is correct Rebel Je'Daii, but it's worse than that, the real problem is that they simply just can't write a single good story because they don't know what credibility and coherence is. They can't give any real motivations for the characters. Just like what was done with Star Wars since episode 7.
Post-modernist nonsense of there being no such thing as objective truth. if you think emotions are everything and there is not such thing as a coherent reality, how in blazing hells are you going to write a coherent story?
It won’t hurt my feelings if Kelvin dies. I’m not an Abrams fan. I thought Lost was dumb crap. Dude’s been way, way overhyped from the get-go. He didn’t do well for Star Trek, and his performance with Star Wars has been... rocky, at best. It’s unfortunate for the non-headlining cast and the crew that Abrams and Paramount screwed everything up as much as they have. Let Kelvin fade away.
Joseph Bentley: No, you didn't have to watch it from start to finish because intelligence. Abrams and Lindelof fessed up years after it was over that there was never a grand plan, that it was made up as it went along, sometimes incorporating stuff they read that fans 'predicted' online might happen. Other times they read that stuff and went in other directions. LOST was a midseason replacement, and they were surprised to get picked up, especially since it was just a concept pilot they threw out there and didn't have a story in mind going forward. They *were* clever enough to keep fans hooked and falling all over themselves along the way, at least until the end.
Another problem with Into the Darknes.was it was a reboot of the classic Star Trek movie Wrath of Khan.Which is still considered.The best Star Trek movie ever.
Except it's not even really that for a whole third of the movie. It just lifts references from WoK for reference's sake and completely misunderstands the significance of those moments. Rewatch the Kirk death scene and you'll realize just how tonally inconsistent it is with the rest of the movie. It's a slow, somber climax but it's bookended with INTENSE ACTION. It's like getting post-orgasm tortured on screen.
And they lied about making something total different. Back then all the comments were, "please do not remake Wrath of Khan it was great". Then they remade Khan...how original.
Worse than that, they didn't understand why Wrath of Khan was great in the first place. It's not about a mid-life crisis or Shakespearian blood oaths or about mortality, you know, themes people study in English class. No, ID was about 9/11 conspiracy theories and other such nonsense.
These types of vids are why I subbed to your channel. Love this format. One has to appreciate how much time it takes to research and piece these synopses together.
I hope they do a total reboot and go back the old Kirk that was not a clueless rebel without a cause (with new actor of course). The old Kirk graduated top in his class just like Picard. That's how you get to command the flagship. Yes, I am an old fan.
Start with a great story by a top-flight science fiction author, then adapt it for the screen. And by adapt, I don't mean throw it out and let some SJW write the same old propaganda that's destroying all entertainment.
Exactly. In the original pilot Gary Mitchell said that at the academy, Kirk was "a stack of books with legs" - NOT some bar-brawling brat! And I'm sure that when the REAL Kirk finagled the Kobayashi Maru, he played it straight as long as he could - not eating an apple and smirking like a jerk.
I was too young for the original seasons, but I was raised in years and years of reruns.(Old, old fan, too.) Kirk did cheat on the Kobiyashi Maru test. Bus since it was always mentioned that he was the only person to survive it, not that he was just some cheater, circumstances must have been much more involved than has ever been explained. But at least he wasn't handed the Enterprise out of the captain's revere for his father. HUH? Very, VERY implausible, and it made me very uncomfortable with the story. (Only 'till the next thing blew up) - But I figured that I paid for a movie, save the intellectualizing for afterwards, and watch the movie. I enjoyed the movie. That doesn't mean that I thought it was a Trek movie.
I never cared for the Kelvin Timeline. The idea of 2 officers fighting for Command of Starfleet’s Flagship is absolutely Ludicrous! I Love Star Trek but the Kelvin Timeline has failed to impress, I liken it to “Stargate Universe “ The Real Turd though is ”Star Trek Discovery” and boy is it a Turd!!!
Anthony Pegues Gee thanks, I was trying to forget about the existence of Stargate Universe, but I guess considering the subject matter, it was impossible not to think about it anyway. Another franchise destroyed because they ignored the true fans in favor of looking for a new audience.
Scrap the Kelvin tineline. Come up with an original Star Trek film (new ship/crew) and give it more of a feel of old Trek mixed with new filmography. Give us old guard fans something to be excited about. The best Star Trek has always been about family, and tackling tough, ethical questions while projecting space travel as a majestic nautical/naval affair. These current producers just don't get that.
You're kidding yourself if you think that. There is no what they would take a nine figure risk without doing crazy research. They did however choose to make an almost entirely new franchise.
Kids won't go to the pictures to watch that though! And seen as under 25's are probably the cinemas best client age fast action packed films will out do films that make you think and reminisce! Unless you can make cheap films with cheap actors your not going to break even and if there cheap and the actors are cheap because there not very good there going to crap and get bad reviews making no money! I think it's called catch 22! Your best bet is a TV series with average stars and the money being made by commercial rights.
You obviously didn't see 'Beyond." Movies are more than the experience in the theater. They are a development process, from script to screen, with an army of collaborators. Yes, each individual film needs to stand on its own--no "homework" involved or the film is a failure--but they all undeniably carry the baggage of what came before, in terms of genres, cliches, franchises, actors. Everything that appears on the screen has weight. Star Trek: Beyond not only is a rip-roaring good time all on its own, but for the first time since the series "reboot," and arguably for the first time since the original cast left the screen in Star Trek Six (or Generations, if you're into that sort of thing), the people in charge of shepherding the Star Trek Universe towards the multiplex remembered what was at the center of that universe: a family.
Simon Pegg and Karl Urban are (to me ) the best parts of the new Star Trek movies. I'm a big fan of the old Shatner/Nimoy franchise, so I wouldn't be too upset if these new movies stopped here. Forget Star Trek, get Karl Urban in negotiations for a new Dredd movie :D
Mark Caswell hes supposed to be interested in the mega city one tv show if Dredd has a suotable role in it and not just shoehorned onto it for fan service. the show will tell tales from around the city instead of being all about Dredd. i hope netflix picks it up.
I doubt they'll make another Dredd movie after the last two flopped. I'll agree that Karl Urban did a great job as Dredd and he should have continued doing it. But Hollywood is all about the bottom line and making money. They're not going to risk another Dredd movie unless they're assured that it's going to bring in the big bucks. If the Netflix series gets good press, assuming they pick it up of course, then maybe we'd see him reprising the role on the big screen.
That is true, the Hollywood studios are interested in making money, not a movie to please the 2000 AD fans. I've been a Dredd fan since he first appeard in the late 70's, and Karl Urban's portrayal was (to me) almost perfect (Judge Dredd does not remove his helmet Mr Stallone). I hope the Netflix series with Karl Urban will at least appear, even if we don't get another big budget movie.
+Mark Caswell Yeah that helmet thing in the original Sylvester Stallone movie bugged me as did just about everything else in it. It just wasn't Judge Dredd.
I'd argue that the Sylvester Stallone movie was actually more Dredd than anyone gives it credit for. The problem is how cheesy it came off as a live action... but the dialogue was almost spot on for comic book storyboarding. You could take snapshots from the movie, box in the dialogue, and turn it all into a comic book. The reason why Dredd was better as a movie, was it took the heart and soul of the comic but adapted it to the live action. Urban's dialogue and delivery was still short enough to be like the comics, but it didn't come across as cheesy. Would have succeeded if they'd advertised it properly. There was no hype for it. Hell, I only found out about it a couple weeks before release. I was still there on opening night, but there was no time to get an opening weekend audience going. Plus, lots of people hated the 3D format (and the extra money per ticket), while Dredd showed in theaters only in the 3D format. It was done beautifully in 3D, but that turned a lot of potential audience away.
Does the rejected script for Star Trek Beyond still exist in its entirety? I'd love to read what the studio considered "too Star Treky" to be put in a Star Trek movie.
I love Star Trek, and personally loved the 2009 movie and Into Darkness. Beyond got as many stars from me as it had warp scenes. But the new cast did a brilliant job with the youth and volume of old and loved characters. Its a shame what happened with Beyond.
I loved the new series but its smart for the Chris's to hold firm because why do favors for a studio.. They both have big movies coming for DC and Marvel.
Jar Jar Abrams destroyed Star Trek. I could care less what Paramount does from this point on. The one positive I can see come from this is less money spent on action/effects and more screen time spent on character drama. The real bedrock of Trek.
"The one positive I can see come from this is less money spent on action/effects and more screen time spent on character drama." That's a very good point.
Yea it's a bloody shame. The series could have been awesome if they had stayed true to trek and not turned Sulu gay....I hope they burn in hell for that.
Yep. As a potential investor having "the first female Star Trek directory" makes me want to hand over gobs of cash. The Kelvin timeline stories were an abortion made only to support a lame business decision.
They really don’t need Hemsworth at all; in fact, bringing him in would have been foolish. But Pine leaving sinks the series. And you know, good riddance to it. They gave themselves a golden opportunity to explore the Trek universe by recombining plot elements in fun new ways. But when they had years to work on _Beyond,_ they shat out a dull, by-the-numbers snoozefest that might as well have been a random VGR episode.
I liked all three movies and was looking forward to the fourth with some trepidation since bringing Kirk's dad back could have been great or gone terribly wrong. I was also not looking forward to how they were going to handle Chekov being gone. Of course, my interest in the this series and the new movie could have been that I'm a Pine and Hemsworth fan. If Pine really is out and, if Paramount is not posturing about making a Star Trek 4, I would be no longer be watching. They should forget about the female-director pandering and hold out for Tarantino's Star Trek. No cast would be older than the original in all of their movies so better to do it right than to put out something for the sake of filling time until then.
6mil $ for what 6-7 months of part time work...they are just as bad as sports players going on strike...kidnapping the film industry like that...forcing ticket price increases and expensive water down drinks and overcooked foods ...greed all greed. what ever happened to honor...
How long did ya sit around, digging so deep, desperately seeking to come with some 'apt' Trek dialogue to express your feelings so.. so.. Er.. actually, if that was the best you could come up with, I really wouldn't have bothered!!! ('"Spock! Spock! - One of you, anyway!! - Vulcan nerve-pinch over here, please!!!")
A female director isn't a selling point for investors per se. Like any director, it depends on her track record and SJ Clarkson doesn't have one as far as this type of film is concerned. What appointing a female director DOES do is guarantee a ton of free publicity as it is touted as an advancement for women. Such free publicity is, of course, worth something as it ensures a lot of visibility (and, some argue, favourable reviews from critics reluctant to criticise a female director) but it can also backfire as audiences can take against movies where they think the studio has put virtue signalling above quality.
I was rather proud of Avery Brooks when he denied the title of being "the first black captain of Star Trek." He wanted to be recognized as being considered the best actor for the role, not being a token black man to make a token landmark role. In other words, put people in jobs because they appreciate it and can fill the job adequately, not because it creates a historical landmark.
Man I was so disappointed when I heard it was cancelled. I was pretty excited for it when I heard Chris Hemsworth was going be George Kirk again. It would’ve been epic to see George and James interact. Also the fact that Chris Hemsworth and pine will both be working together and doing interviews together, it would’ve been awesome. Ah but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.
Star trek online stories however well intended, are just trash B grade acting and production quality. I'd rather they just let trek rest for another 10 years. No need to flog a dead horse
"How will you look back on the Kelvin timeline movies?" - A massive waste of potential and resources - there was so much room for interesting stories and characters, but instead they decided to go full tent-pole Marvel blockbuster knockoff. As for how it relates to Trek lore, I give it as much importance as one the "quantum realities" in the TNG episode Parallels - an alternate universe that is a best a novelty to watch but ultimately means nothing to the Prime Trek events other than maybe the (assumed) destruction of Romulus.
+Morality124 _"A massive waste of potential and resources - there was so much room for interesting stories and characters, but instead they decided to go full tent-pole Marvel blockbuster knockoff."_ Corporate thinking process is amazing, isn't it? The assumption is that a movie is only good if it makes the most money. Therefore, only Marvel-style action movies are any good (because they make the most money). Therefore, the only way to make a good movie is to make movies the way Marvel does. Therefore, the only good writers are the ones who can make Marvel movies. But you can't actually get the writers from Marvel... unless they switch sides, since Marvel is the competition. Therefore, the only good writers are the people who promise to make the best Marvel movie they can make, even though they aren't employed by Marvel (can't imagine why 😒 ). What we're left with is a bunch of skill-deficient assheads who don't even know what made Marvel's movies good - let alone anyone else's - making poor knockoffs of other people's work in franchises not even meant to resemble Marvel, instead of enriching the lore of the series they write for.
The Kelvin timeline wouldn't have happened anyways, ever hear of the Starfleet's Temporal Division? They would've made sure whatever changes Nero did to the timeline would've been undone.
Case in Point: Star Trek Voyager: Future's end Parts 1&2 - Captain Braxton travels back to prevent a catastrophic incident, WHICH he himself actually instigated believing that it was Voyager that was responsible for Star Trek Voyager: Relativity - Captain Braxton enlists Seven of Nine to go back in time to when Voyager was still at Utopia Planitia ship yards before leaving for the badlands, only to discover that it was he himself from further in the future who had travelled back in time Star Trek DS9: Trouble with Trebbles - Defiant is taken back in time by an disgraced Klingon who wanted to try and kill Captain Kirk in the words of Captain Janeway "I hate Temporal Mechanics!"
No, they don’t correct every single timeline infraction. The Annorax ran over the Delta quadrant with no intervention. Besides, they’re idiots. They get entire races wiped out of existence. Plus, with the way time travel works in ST, if a faction loses they can just try again. Each time getting closer to their goal. They didn’t intervene in First Contact. The whole earth got assimilated. The Borg opened up transwarp conduits all over with no intervention. Even if they did show up theres no guarantee they’d be the technological superior faction with the power to stop the aggressor. Although I’d give anything to see pizza cutter Enterprise J in a fight..
Imagine this: They announce a new movie in the "Alien" franchise. They announce that the main characters are Ripley and the crewmembers from the first movie, and it takes place on the Nostromo. A massive hype builds up. You go to the theatre to see it. Turns out it's a Marvel-style comedic-action movie. You go on the internet to express your outrage at being deceived. People call you a fanboy and tell you they loved it. The movie makes oodles of money and spawns two sequels. That was JJ's Star Trek for me.
Now that I think about it, it was probably "Aliens" to some people. xD (Except "Aliens" is totally awesome. Doesn't detract from the original's glory either.)
+Headrock the worst though are the peeps that moan at you for not liking a certain part of a movie because of actual nonsense, that they say was explained in some book, comic or video game... movies are supposed to be self explanatory... I shouldn't have to go do research to find out the info. lol
im sorry but everyone died from the first movie and they were separate before that mission, and I hate to burst your bubble but they are making another aliens
This is a fast-paced and high-density video. You present a lot of information pretty without losing the listener. I like your format! Very good video. Very good history lesson.
As a young guy, I became a Star Trek fan when these new movies came out. For me, Star Trek is nothing without Chris Pine. He is the heart and soul of this franchise, and without him, I think they should just end it for now. A shame, as it could've been epic to see Pine & Hemsworth together on screen :/
Oh, the Kelvin timeline....The first movie was a good action movie, but a terrible Star Trek movie. Wrath of Not-Khan lost me by lying about Khan. And Beyond was maybe 20 minutes of fun material surrounded by a lot of garbage and yet another Starfleet-officers-are-the-real-bad-guys plot. I won't mourn the timeline for a second. All in all, its pretty sad how fighting over rights has ruined both the movies, and the tv show, and the fan project that was probably going to be the best of the bunch. (Of course, terrible producers were also to blame for those first two...)
The 1st Star Trek (2009) was not even a good action movie. there was too much non-sens, incoherence, improbabilities. It's a mountain of stupidities chained one behind the other. Is it credible to blame Spock for what happens to romulus ??? The travel through black hole is impossible and why would that allow to travel back in time? Why nero did not try to prevent the destruction of romulus instead of waiting for Spock, why dig a hole in Vulcan when you can use "stupid magical red matter" that creates black holes? etc... The list is very long, probably one of the most stupid movies in the history of cinema, if not the stupidest....
I had hopes that they were going in the right direction with the third one, but apparently it's a lost cause now. I think the setup had a lot of potential to be better than it was.
I think the new Star Trek movie by JJ was GREAT! Sure it might have flaws and inconsistencies. I'm not a fan of the whole Kelvin timeline thing. I would have rather seen the true timeline in the past, but.. se la vie.. nothing is perfect.
So the first script for Star Trek Beyond was thrown out cause it was "Too Star Trek-y"... Coincidentally, it's about time those pesky xenomorphs were phased out of the Alien series! (The sad part is I believe Ridley Scott actually said that...)
Ridley Scott actually wanted to make movies based on scientology, you know...man meeting their god . Scott once said in an interview that the Xenomorphs were supposed to only be a one time thing, but fox that the critters more than a film on philosophical theory of finding man's creators.
@@MrDEMarq Unfortunately, whatever his original vision/thoughts on the matter, it doesn't change the fact that the guy's head has truly disappeared up his own anus. From the last two films he did in the series, I'd say it's for the best that this particular vision didn't get realised.
I want to see Erik Jendreson's script for the ORIGINAL Star Trek 11, which would have been a Romulan War movie. memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Beginning
All of this is very sad because the Star Trek reboot looked very promising. I am a lifelong Star Trek fan and I loved the alternate story lines (I even wasn't as annoyed by the new Khan).
An interesting insight to the bumpy ride the Kelvin timeline has had. I didn't know about the CBS/Viacom/Paramount/Bad Robot relationships and how complex they were. This was well-paced and informative, my only (small) complaint would be to either find a lot more stock images or use something else entirely, seeing the same dozen or so photos for almost half an hour was a bit tedious. Thank for putting this together!
Probably all the still shots are in response to CBS being quasi-illegally gung-ho about video rights infringement on any channel that even slightly critisizes it's product. Apparently, It's easier for them to attack someone else's work than defend thier own.
Didn't all of this happen in 1979 with the huge budget mess Star Trek The Motion Picture? They slashed the budget, got a better director, and gave the fans a REAL movie with Wrath Of Khan.
Angus Nyg : If you actually enjoyed the 1979 STTMP, then you are expelled from Starfleet Academy! Turn in your uniform cadet because that film was a fiasco! Big budget, big effects (obviously done to make it more like Star Wars) and directed by Robert Wise who had not even seen an original episode. This awful mess was titled by REAL Trek fans as "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" referring to the script pretty much ripping off the plot lines of a few original episodes. You are stripped of rank! DISMISSED!
That the first movie was essentially a bloated version of one of the TV episodes was really disappointing. The second, which built upon one of the episodes was far better, and likely the only reason the movies were able to continue onward (which ultimately turned out to series of misses and hits like the first two).
They brought in Harve Bennett, a TV producer who had been successful, and knew how to produce with a tight budget. Paramount's TV division actually made Wrath of Khan, so knew how to work on a tight production schedule. That's why it was so successful and well-liked: It was a major TV movie for the big screen, and kept itself within the shadow of TOS. BTW, one of the reasons the first movie sucked was the obvious rush job on sfx. The 'Director's Cut' DVD restored the planned effects, and looks a lot more professional and makes the story seem to advance at a little quicker pace.
Originally ST:TMP was supposed to be Star Trek: Phase II television series. Then Star Wars happened and the studio decided to do big budget films. IMHO: mistake.
They want to make Avengers-type money knowing thats a property for "nerds" and they're afraid of making Star Trek too "nerdy". Paramount must be run by a bunch of former jocks, no wonder they got a Fast and Furious director to make Beyond.
Star trek is no longer Star trek but a Star trek flavored action film. No thinking is required for the new version of this Trek. It's a blatant money grab.
Its an alternate timeline. Get over it. Its still Star Trek. If you say its not youve clearly never seen the os, tng, ds9, voyager or enterprise, let alone any of the major feature films. The graphics/production upgrades are most welcome to the majority of us. Beyond sucked, just like many other star trek movies before it...that doesnt mean the entire kelvin timeline is garbage.
Having JJ make both Star Wars and Star Trek was a mistake. He should have stuck with only one. Now it looks like both Scifi series will end badly. I liked the 1st new Trek movie but Into Darkness (to me) wasn't good but the 3rd was however in total they were not as good as the original 6 Trek movies. I understand the JJ films were in a new alternate universe but Into Darkness still was not good and that put to much pressure on ST Beyond to succeed. It looks like the same fate will come to Star Wars, with a good Ep7 but and bad Ep8 and to much put on Ep9 to please fans. I have a very bad feeling about this.
J.J.Abrams films are the most hated of each franchise he touches, in Star Wars somehow the actually good The Last Jedi got the blame despite The Force Awakens being the one that was actually bad. (Mission Imposible III is perharps the only exception)
Abrams movies are derivative. Even movies like Super 8. They're kinda good b/c they kinda remind you of a lot of other stuff you've seen. But there's not much new or exciting in them. At most, he plays with the visuals but I can get all I need out of the visuals watching the trailers. Case in point: They go through all this trouble to set up a new timeline so Spock can be different and so they don't have to be beholden to anything that's come before and then...for the second movie...it's a rehash of the ORIGINAL Star Trek II and a lame one at that. It makes no sense. It's lazy. And do I need to convince anyone that Force Awakens *is*, beat for beat, a retelling of A New Hope? Even Chewie's scream when Han is KIlled mirrors Luke's scream when Ben is killed in ANH. Abrams is mistaking 'nostalgia' for story-telling and dramatic content. Abrams should run a studio and stop trying to tell stories.
Figrin Dan www.cc.com/video-clips/d6lpc8/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-j-j--abrams Start at 2:25. Abrams himself gives the best reason he should have never gotten that job.
Jar Jar Abrams took anything intelligent and interesting out of the franchise and dumbed it down, replacing plot with pretty kabooms and lens flares. It used to be the destruction of the Enterprise was an emotional experience, the ship had a chracter of its own...but Jar Jar sucked that right out and made it an every movie event. Bringing back Khan was the final straw, showing how little imagination the makers had and how little respect they had for the source material. Kirk was turned into a punchline, a two dimensional charicature and a Gary Stu. It's fun to make fun of millenials, but this series really was insulting to everyone, giving no audience member any credit for intelligence at all. Abrams and Lindelof are both so over-rated that it's ridiculous. In true Abrams style, he went on to wreck Star Wars next...turning The Force Awakens into nothing more than a bad version of A New Hope with a Mary Sue main character, publicly slamming the fans and pattting himself on the back for his genius. Yeah...screw you, Abrams.
Into the Darkness was a 9/11 analogy. Kahn basically being osama bin laden, crashing the ship into "American" buildings killing tons then retreating into enemy klingon territory(afghanistan). Then that seal team six ship that goes into klingon territory. and the correlations of it being destroyed with real life events. The whole movie was very distasteful. Especially since 9/11 was an inside job.
There was a time where I would have been so excited for a new Star-Trek movie but not anymore. Recently Star-Trek like many of our beloved franchises are dead & should be left in peace. Something I thought I’d never say
Screw Pine and Helmsworth ……. give us the cast of Star Trek Continues and give us a weekly series …… lower production costs and greater return !!!!!!! HELLO !!!!!!!!!!
I went to a Star Trek convention in Sacramento, Ca. about three or four years ago. Tim Russ, the actor who played Tuvok in the Star Trek: Voyager series, was the guess speaker. Tim Russ also had a small part in Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country. He also reprised his role of Tuvok in the Star Trek fan film Star Trek: Renegades. During one of the panel discussions Tim Russ made an important and accurate observation that Star trek simply works better as a TV show, than a movie. I strongly agree. The character development, story lines, and history of Star Trek characters simply can not be developed in movies. I'm glad the Kelvin time line movies are ending. Its time to focus more on the original Star Trek time line and produce a Star Trek TV show that does not require viewers to subscribe to some special pay-perview CBS channel.
Most characters in Star Trek don't see much in the way of character development, each week the series largely resets back to default and Tuvok is himself one of the many examples of undeveloped/underdeveloped characters.
That's true. Even the first 6 movies were good because we were catching up with old friends from the TV series. By themselves, if audiences hadn't known anything about Trek, they just wouldn't have been much, really.
Trek works fine as movies as long as you have decent writers who respect what came before. The Wrath of Khan is still considered a high water mark for the classic movie franchise, with good character development in terms of Kirk's mid-life crisis and Khan's vengeance, not to mention the interplay between the big three characters.
I'm not sure I agree completely here. Your right about Tuvok but look at Tom Paris, or Harry Kim on Voyager, they developed a great deal. That said Voyager isn't a shining beacon of Star Trek Ideals anyway. Most of that was lost when TNG ended. Although post season 3 DS9 I think did a great job of balancing both Character Growth, Ethics, and drama with a more modern need for "Plot Worthy" action.
While I absolutely loved Karl Urban as Bones, and Zachery Quinto was the perfect actor to step into the shoes of Leonard Nimoy (and I even liked Chris Pine's Kirk.... eventually ^_^), I think its time for the Kelvin timeline to die and let the actors move on to projects that will promote their careers better. I'm hoping that CBS somehow absorbs Paramount, so we can just forget this whole "Kelvin Timeline will replace Original Series Timeline" crap, and get back to making good Trek that ALL the fans will enjoy, not just the imaginary fans Paramount thinks will follow what they are pumping out.
Remember when Star Trek was great, and the Star Trek fan films were in high gear and the content was awesome. You know there where a lot of complaints about Axanar and there being the reason for basically shutting down the fan films. Well, that's all B.S, because CBS didn't want any competition with Discovery coming out. How great would it have been if CBS would have absorbed the fan films, fresher ideas, better content. But no, you have numerous trek fans boycotting and when Horizon gets over 9 million viewers and fan films get over millions of hits on there sites you have to ask that one big question? Who was ( or is ) making the better the Star Trek?
Part of the problem is the bean counters in charge of the studios who seem to think that big budget blockbusters are the only form of film that should be made. The sooner that they realise that flopping out their "Look at the size of my budget" epeens while vomiting out ever more formulaic movies is what is killing the industry the better.
I have no love of the JJ verse/Kelvin verse as there is absolutely nothing about it of interest to me, however, they at least made one decision I applaud. They made the wise decision to set it in it's OWN universe rather than declaring it a full on reboot. Sure it was purely a way to appease certain fans but ultimately it feels far more respectful to the past creators than the alternative. I won't even start on STD and these other projects CBS is working on as I have nothing good to say about them.
When "Into Darkness" just ended up being Khan.. I lost interest. Though director when he did Star Wars, did the same..no imagination, just copied prior Star Wars movie from the 70s
I saw a few of your videos; your videos are over 20 minutes long. I didn't think I would be able to sit through one person talking on and on. But holy crap, they were informative, they were straight to the point, and I watched them from beginning to end!
It seems to me, that everything J.J. Abrams touches, sparkles bright in the beginning, but turns into stone at some point. He is in there for the money, nothing more.
The first two films weren't even at all good, at all. They were both terrible, but hype seems to still sucker people into the theater. The 3rd film was OK, certainly not great, but it wasn't terrible. The first two films were incredibly stupid plot and writing wise, the 3rd was merely dumb. To be honest, I 'm now entirely bored with the entire universe, and I'll never bother to pay money toward it again.
inyourfacetimmy he's George Lucas - he can do awesome work if a big personality is there to tell him STOP THAT'S DUMB. Same thing happened with LOTR and the hobbit.
At this point it seems like Paramount doesn't have many options in the first place. Unless Paramount can find investors the studio could go bankrupt within the next few years.
Johnathon Haney considering how few big franchises they currently have I expect other companies will wait until Paramount's i.p.s and licenses are auctioned off
But will the Star Trek licence be part of that auction? I cannot see CBS allowing any other opposition company to make money from the Star Trek universe.
Oh, please. Star Wars was obviously J.J.'s aim all along. He's always been an SW fan, whereas he'd never even watched an episode of ST before taking on the first film. He was auditioning to get the next SW film, that's clear.
Selling the ip to Netflix or HBO is the best thing that could happen to ST. GoT is about to end (and with their laughably slow production schedule everyone has already forgotten about it). Orange is the new black is pretty much over. They both need something big desperately to keep people coming
I really must stop basking in the production troubles of both Star Trek and Star Wars, but I must point out that everything has a beginning, middle and end, and I think those two franchises, together with Doctor Who, should all BE LAID TO REST FOREVER MORE.
Don't be too certain though. How many times have we seen Batman, Superman and Spiderman being played by different actors? Its time these overpaid overdemanding actors realised they aren't dispensible and can be replaced?
@@tsu8003 Yeah, that's true. However, those examples all had either RADICAL changes in visual style and feel (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, and look what happened there) or were overall reboots!
This is precisely what happened in the ALIEN movie, PROMETHEUS. All the characters made the opposite decisions that characters made in the first movie. STUPID.
I have only seen the first reboot, at the theater. I have only the Blu-ray for the first re-boot. I have watched the second film streamed for free. I have not, nor will I watch the third film. Stop blowing up my favorite characters, ie The Enterprise.
They can make the TNG trilogy: fourth is TNG, DS9 is second and fifth film, and VOY is 3rd and 6th film. Than have the third trilogy: 7 is Enterprise, 8 is with Picard, Sisko and Janeway working together, and the last one is when Janeway, Sisko, and Picard go with Kirk and Archer. Kirk’s father is in the last movie.
Bullshit. Soylo was the first commercial failure in the franchise's history and for VERY good reasons. No prequel ever lost money. If this trend continues, then Star Wars will die and not come back. The prequels did not take everything good about Star Wars and simply throw it away. And they didn't turn it into politically driven sludge. Red Letter Media got it exactly right "There's nothing special about Star Wars anymore".
JJ didn't ruin Star Wars. Don't project Rian Johnson's piece of garbage The Last Jedi onto The Force Awakens. The entire reason The Last Jedi made so much darn money is because of the setup that JJ left for it in The Force Awakens. It was Rian Johnson's choice to ignore everything that happened and bastardize all the lore that was set up and the story that had the fans clamoring for more. So before you go "JJ ruined Star Wars" think about why The Last Jedi made money. It sure wasn't because the fans hated The Force Awakens. It's because the majority loved or liked The Force Awakens and were excited about all the setup and answers that were coming in The Last Jedi. Rian Johnson did NONE of that and ruined the lore with his own terrible ideas. That is why after that garbage attempt at a Star Wars film, no one went to go see Solo. So when you want to look at who "ruined" Star Wars, don't point at the guy who left a perfect setup and got the fans excited and talking for years about what the next film may offer, point at the guy who ignored it all and killed any anticipation for the 3rd film. That ain't JJ Abrams, it's Rian Johnson.
The Force Awakens was a Star Wars film, made like a Star Wars film. If your biggest complaint is that it feels too much like the original trilogy or that it pandered too much to Star Wars fans. Well then that's a pretty big compliment. But yes, keep bashing a Star Wars movie for reminding you of the original trilogy too much and pandering to much to Star Wars fans :) That seems like quite the sound argument. Got the opposite in The Last Jedi and we see how well that worked out.
JJ never wanted Trek. He just wanted to use it to do Star Wars. He wasn't trek fan at all. this split was a bad idea and both companies are suffering for it. Just look at all the major long running franchises and all of them are failing barring Marvel and why marvel isn't. They don't shun the core fans liek the rest did and we see the results.
Which is ironic since the damage done to SW is far more severe storywise. You can scrap the JJ timeline and still have everything that was Star Trek being intact. Where in SW everything Disney has done is destroying what came before.
The political in fighting between CBS and Paramount has managed to alienate fans who are prepared to spend money on cinema, dvd, and even merchandise of trek. It's a cash cow that the studios have ruined with this kelvin timeline. Crash starships on to cities, destroy Vulcan, Beastie Boys and fuckin lens flare, really! FFS. They even destroyed fan films who knew more about the subject than they did. Axanar trailer was awesome. Thanks CBS and Paramount, why dont you grow up, scrap the kelvin timeline and make proper trek, its the only way they can make any money from AN EXISTING AUDIENCE OF MILLIONS OF FANS.
nothing wrong with the first two reboot films. third one was pretty much garbage. they are aiming too high. star trek films have never brought in loads of money they need to cut production costs.
Nothing wrong? In the reboot, engineering looked like a bunch of rusted pipes in an abandoned factory while the bridge looked like some disco tech parlor. Just wondering why they didn't destroy earth along with Vulcan and Romulus - it might have made more sense. But now I realize that they had to make it different enough in order to sell their little dolls. That's always a good reason to eliminate two out of the four planets which pretty much shaped the Star Trek universe. The other two being Earth and Kronos. And don't get me started on the 'advanced' Romulus death ship with those chains hanging from everywhere. What a nightmare that movie was. Watched the second movie on a flight back home to pass the time. Turned it off half way through to watch something better. I think it was the Chicken Little animated movie.
Paramount has alienated fans of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers, GI Joe, and Star Trek. They seem to be taking every single franchise and mishandling them. And starting new ones like Monster Trucks? Why did they think anyone wanted to see that!?
@@moonmanvic fans generate cash. If you dont please fans, you dont make as much money. There are plenty of opinion clips and feedback on the internet and youtube so there is no excuse for failing an existing fanbase. Cinema is a Business to make money. Give them what they want. It aint rocket science, if you'll excuse the irony in that statement.
I think that unless Gene was alive to sanction the Kelvin timeline, going against his writer's guidebook, would be evading the Canon of "Star Trek". If "Discovery" makes up a new fact about an original character-Ex.Spock having dyslexia-that would also be breaking Canon. Better to have a new character have dyslexia. This is probably why George Take I didn't want Sulu to be gay. His character was not described as such in the beginning-even if George is gay anyway.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Sneaking [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ILUps2zDFU/mqdefault.jpg)
Scrap everything and start over. And, remember what Star Trek actually is. You know that script that you threw out because it was "too Star Trek-y"? You need to be Star Trek-y. You're Star Trek.
Guruthos Amarthruin Or, you know, just STOP. Create something new that fits our era rather than recycle last century's leftovers. Will it be hard? Hell yes. Will it be a guaranteed hit? Hell no. But this is obviously not working over the long term. It's become the business equivalent of steroids.
Johnathon Haney Just move up in the time line. TOS represented the 60s, TNG, DS9and VOY the late 80s and 90s and ENT was very 2000s.
Tim Krigers Given that The Orville was meant to be a new Star Trek series that CBS rejected, that's actually not too insane, actually. The insane part is that after it was rejected, McFarlane went ahead and did it anyway, and it's a bigger hit with Trekkies than STD will ever be.
Dargonhuman They really should've thought more on the title. The abbreviation just screams stay away.
Ah, fuck starting over. They should move the story forward, ignoring JJ Trek and Nemesis.
As an older Star Trek fan, I'm ambivalent overall about about Kelvin timeline movies. The best thing I can say about them is I enjoyed the casting choices. Pine, Saldana and Pegg were certainly appealing in their interpretations of Kirk, Uhura and Scotty. But Zachary Quinto's Spock and especially Karl Urban's McCoy were simply outstanding. I can't imagine wanting to see a Kelvin timeline movie without those two actors in it. And as long as I'm talking about Karl Urban, can someone please, please make a Dredd sequel?
The Kelvinverse movies have better actors, bigger budgets, better effects, and worse storytelling and worldbuilding than the original Star Trek. The original series was hard enough SF that they had companies contacting them to ask how they'd got hold of their secret prototypes, or how they'd solved particular technical issues, and original characters who'd earned their positions by long service and hard work. Star Trek 09 takes a star fleet cadet who, under other circumstances, could have grown into a legendary captain, decides that nature trumps nurture because he's got the right name, and skips him past a couple of decades of seasoning to give him a position that the original Kirk only got, arguably after Star Trek IV. Not only that, but a circle of cadets and disgraced personnel who are also, apparently, chosen by Destiny, get given the jobs as his bridge crew and command staff because they happen to have the right names. Apparently in the Kelvin timeline, rather than postings being temporary and based on rank and seniority, and people moving between various positions within the crew during the course of their career, you get a job for life as soon as you leave the academy, and have no career path whatsoever...
So, yeah, I'd have loved to see a well-written movie with this cast.
Agree with your thoughts about the casting decisions. Zachary Quinto being cast as Spock is I think one of the best casting decisions in science fiction movies in the last twenty years. And Karl Urban was great as Bones.
Urban was also fantastic as Dredd, however in the Dredd film, a lot of the 'other world' elements written in the comics (off-world colonies, mutants, etc) were missing from the storyline, and I hope that a lot more elements from the comics are included in any TV or Netflix series that they might make, and presented as realistically as possible.
I second that, the cast is the only great thing about the reboot.
Look up Star Trek Continues here on RUclips. One of the best fan-made series ever, faithful to the original material and extraordinarily high quality stories. I absolutely love it.
Marc Hills. The 3rd reboot film was the worst.
Man I really miss the days of TNG and DS9.
I miss Picard asking for Tea Earl Grey hot.
I miss Quark and his shenanigans and getting into trouble with Odo.
I miss Worf complaining about the lack of honor his foes have.
Hell I even miss Captain Janeway deleting a fictional character's wife so she could bed him.
Totally agree. No loss here with the kelvin time line.
And Voyager, and Enterprise. But that was back when syndicated SF was coming to a close and UPN needed Star Trek to stay afloat. They burned out the audience with too much of it.
I loved Voyager back in the day too. I got into it before I discovered DS9. It wasn't until years later I came to realised how flawed it was at times, I mean I never even questioned the episode "threshold" when I first saw it.
Entreprise on the other hand I never really saw. The idea of a prequel series didn't really appeal to me so you can imagine how frustrated I was when I heard about Discovery.
At this point all I really want a follow up series to DS9.
Well at least there IS DS9 follow up "fan produced" (with the best original writers) being produced right now. Who knows when it will be actually released - but the funding is all there and it's in process. So we'll get to see somewhat of a DS9 one-shot...
Enterprise was never a real Trek show. It violated continuity left and right then tried to force it back in during the 4th season. Berman and Braga had so little respect for Trek fans they thought we would take everything given us without question if it had the Trek label on it. Fans were leaving it in droves each year, and as a result, advertisers grew increasingly skittish about buying air time.
ENT was such a failure that it couldn't get the seven season deal that became the standard since the start of TNG. And before you bring up TOS or TAS, those were on the big three networks. And sci-Fi almost NEVER does well on network. ENT couldn't hack it even with Paramount's very own network behind it.
Voyager was bad, but even THAT managed to get all seven seasons. ENT even started out not being called Star Trek
I've seen quite a few Chris Pine interviews and get the feeling that he's a fairly easy going guy. They must have pissed him off royally for him to walk off like that.
Chris Pine wanted a pay raise that was never going to happen. The money was never there.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 if the money was never there then they couldn’t have made any Star Trek movies so stfu and fuck off bitch
@@thunberbolttwo3953 It also appears they were asking him to take a pay cut and as long as he can get other work there's no reason for him to essentially give a corporation money without getting anything in return, like a greater share of ticket sales.
@@JohnSmith-zl1tr Except taking a pay cut is NOT giving the corporation money. The pay cut was in line with the budget of the proposed movie. Considering the box office droped from one to tw. Droped again from two to three. That part three actaully lost money. I am surprised anyone was willing to finance part 4 at all.It was either take a pay cut. Or have no movie at all. He choose wrong. As to geting greater share of ticket sales LOL not going to happen.
Tayohni after part three lost money. pine was never going to get a pay raise for part four. what hit him was reality. He acted like a spoiled brat.
JJ Abrams most certainly was NOT a Star Trek fan. He said so during an interview with John Stewart. (To which Stewart responded, "I stopped listening after you said you weren't a Star Trek fan, and am going to assume everything you said after that was an apology.") This is why Abrams Trek movies are so brain dead. He didn't like the original because it was too cerebral so he dumbed Star Trek down to something he did like.
the JJ ST universe is basically "Frats in space" - with lots of lens flare is shallow story - much like the rest of the hollywood films.
He said the same things in the documentary that Gene Roddebberry's son did about Star Trek. And then what makes it worse, like insult to injury, that Gene's son was never into Star Trek and was a Star Wars fan too
@@ghost7524 when your Born into privilege, you don't know what it's like to have to work for something.
Me personally, I had to put money away just to buy a 30 yr comic I've wanted for a long time the younger generations will never know that
Unfortunately, the studios and directors are more worried over how many NEW people will watch the movies (aka: children and YOUNG adults), that they forego telling good, compelling stories with exceptional acting, opting instead to throw together crappy, politically charged, after-school-special feeling 'movies', that lack any good writing, directing, or acting. I agree that Urban and the majority of the cast of JJ-verse did an admirable job with what they had, but the stories and directing left much to be desired. The execs are so worried about 'bringing in new blood' into the fan-base, that they fail to actually listen to the fans that are already out there, and what the older series actually were about. And, along those lines, the current generation are growing up with - and expecting - fast produced, action-heavy, farcical 'humor'-laced, politically-charged and -laced, movies, that HAVE to make some kind of political statement (especially when it comes to women's lib (The Last Jedi, etc), or having to do with lgbt issues (Sulu in Star Trek - which George Takei was most decidedly NOT happy with, despite his openly being so)), and so they will not even look (in most cases) at anything that doesn't conform to those criteria. Heck, I can't count the number of co-workers that I talked to that told me that they have never watched anything older than when they were born, or the prequels and JJ-verse movies are what they grew up with, so they feel that they are the better of the series.
TOS was about addressing the political-sociological concerns of the time (war, bigotry, equality, patriotism, religion, etc), as were the movies (mostly). TNG continued that trend to a large degree, though they started throwing in more episodes that fit the criteria of 'just a good story'. DS9 went a little farther afield still, and Voyage yet again. By the time of Enterprise, and now the Abrams reboots, Discovery, and the other 'official' products, most of these precepts have been abandoned in favor of an action-packed, political-statement laden product, that isn't worth the film it's recorded on.
Actually no, Star Trek movies are always more action focused. It's a TV show so the movies need to be different or they'll just be classed as feature-length episodes and rated poorly.
I quit spending money on anything Star Trek related (film and merchandise) ever since they cracked down on the fan productions . Star Trek Continues is way more true to the show and its fans than any of the official crap the studios have been putting out.
Greenspud Trades ... I totally agree! ST Continues is cannon as far as I'm concerned.
and Renegades actually got significant number of past cast members to return only to be forced to drop the Trek branding and ultimately kill off most of them.
Stimulator7, YES ALL the fan films being released on RUclips had to DROP ALL references to Trek from there names, reshoot parts or voice over any reference to the Federation and all this other shit that just made them look like random low budget scifi shit.
While it was stupid as all get out for the Renegades Project to start running crowdfunding campaigns for an IP that they didn't own, Star Trek Continues and the other Fan productions were keeping up the good will that the base support had for the franchise. I loved STC, it was made by people who understood Star Trek for people who actually liked Star Trek for what it was.
I understand why the studios did what they did, but it completely killed my enthusiasm for anything they were doing with the franchise.
Greenspud Trades I agree fucking greedy CBS bastards! These idiots think 3 stick and a frisbee id owned by them ! These idiots don't realize change the designs by 10% call it flopy wrek CBS has no fucking legal say !
I've been a big fan for decades and I've sadly witnessed Paramount et al shooting themselves in the foot because they "just don't get it". They never understood Star Trek and it seems as though they never will. 50 years ago, Roddenberry had these same arguments as he tried to convince the bigshots that a "cerebral" script is better than monsters, rayguns and explosions. It is incredible that after all this time, the studios still don't "get it".
One can just look at Star Trek CONTINUES to see that the original concept is still viable and Trek films can be made on a budget. Star Trek Continues is terrific. Why not just invest some money in those people and have them come up with ST4? Get out of their way and they will create a wonderful film that the fans will love.
YES!
In addition to monsters, rayguns and explosions, big names are not needed. There are many talented actors who aren't widely known (and will work demanding schedules for less)
Totally agree
Roddenberry had monsters, rayguns, explosions, T&A, AND a cerebral script.
Rick Odato, that would make too much sense, I guess.
Thank you for the very insightful video. I am a diehard trekker, and to be honest, to have someone say a director was fired because the script was too Star Trekky is exactly why they failed. I sat through the absolutely terrible first movie and was never able to watch 2 and 3 even when they come on TV. JJ Abrams and Paramount absolutely gutted a classic by not understanding what Gene Roddenberry had created. That's just too disheartening.
Rob, I can't emphasize enough how important these corporate movie making dissections are. I have been watching all the vids and have had my eyes opened. You guys, Andre especially, are doing a huge service for fandom and the general public by reporting and discussing these topics in the style and focus that you do. I caught last-nights, a commenter questioned the reporting on Star Trek on your live stream. The thing is, everything you have been reporting even a year ago, has all come to pass. You guys should've pointed the troll to the vids you made last year, where all of this was not only reported and explained, but rumors about the coming debacle and direction of STD were all true. You guys put it together before anyone and it is a shining example of the excellent reporting and research Andre requires before anything is put in a video for public consumption. You guys are singular and special among all the noise and spin that hits everyone in this digital age. I do miss your original tune at the beginning of videos, but that's because it gives me the nostalgia from the Trank-gate days of your channel. But I digress. Thanks again Rob. Your radio voice makes all the info your lay out easy to consume and understand. Subbed
SquawkCode VR This, my friend, is what authentic journalism looks like in practice: gather your information, verify it to the best of your ability and only publish what you can prove. Internet commentators could learn from this.
SquawkCode VR As someone else who appreciates these videos, I thank you for expressing my gratitude in so eloquent a manner.
I too have been following since the Trankgate days. Hope to see the channel grow even more
Was just about to comment saying pretty much the same thing. You said it better. Kudos.
The rights for Star Trek is a complete joke. But the irony is it’s all owned by the same overall company.
The big problem with the Kelivn timeline, as far as art is concerned, is that consequences don't exist in these movies. Here are some examples:
Vulcan was blown up. Result: Spock briefly complains about it in Into Darkness to win an argument with Uhura.
The Enterprise crashes in Into Darkness. Result: They just get Enterprise A in Beyond. Since that ship crashed too, they'll probably get another Enterprise. Three movies in and they're up to Enterprise-B.
Scotty invents inter-system transporter technology in 09. Result: Khan only uses it to transport a bomb and get away from Earth. Starfleet does not ever take advantage of Iconian-tier technology.
Kirk is demoted back to cadet for saving Spock's life in Into Darkness. Result: Kirk gets demoted to commander because Pike likes him.
Kirk's away team and Khan shoot up a Klingon patrol on Q'onos. Result: The Klingons do not invade Earth for no reason.
The entire Admiralty Board is dead in Into Darkness. Result: Starfleet functions just fine in Beyond.
Deus Ex Machina Blood. Result: What Deus Ex Machina blood?
When consequences don't matter in a story, it's impossible to stay invested. Your suspension of disbelief gets broken constantly and you stop paying attention. That's when you start Pinkett-ing the movie you're watching, seeing how it fails. Thus, the Kelvin brand did not sell. People didn't believe in it. They don't believe in its characters. They don't believe in the setting (Nokia). TOS with its pneumatic tube technology is more believeable because you believe in the characters and the setting. Characters act like professionals in Prime Star Trek. That's not the case in Kelvin or ST:D.
Alex The Enterprise A was the ship they were building at the end of Beyond. The NCC 1701 was was the same ship through all three movies until it was totally destroyed in Beyond.
I absolutely agree with the rest though. I wonder if this new Picard series will address Romulus being destroyed.
Ron Volkert I think his point is that the E got so shot up in STID that it essentially had to be rebuilt, and the ship that warps out at the end and the one we see in beyond is different from the original. So technically it's accurate: the 09 enterprise was refit into a new ship by beyond, and then that ship was destroyed outright. You keep destroying the Enterprise, you make it less special
Personally i think it would be funnier if the prime timeline completely ignores the kelvin timeline. make it clear that Romulus is fine and well, and that Spoke died of old age in the timeline. Keep them separate.
Let's not forget the incredible folly that was recasting the original crew, who is not just iconic to the franchise, but iconic tot he medium of television and movie in a way not too many other achieve. That's bananas. And it leads to situations like the one we have here. I'd virtually guarantee longevity and shared history, if not actual friendship, was the reason so many original cast movies got made so long after the series had been cancelled. The new cast did not have this legacy together and have no real reason to feel fealty to the brand beyond their paychecks. Ergo Pine's childish "I'm not a big enough millionaire so BLAH" move. When a member of the original character roster either dies or quits...your narrative is just plain screwed! If these had been original characters you could just write it off as "oh, he died. That's what happens in this story". But we know when Kirk is supposed to die. We know what happened to Scotty and Bones. We know original Chekove could technically still appear in a star trek movie if the studios really wanted him to. None of that syncs up in the Kelvin timeline at this point and fans won't be okay with it.
You cannot bottle lightning twice. Most people can't even do it once. Recasting the original crew was a disastrous idea from the very beginning.
Baldr's Dreams Very true. STD excerbates this problem even more by running a third Pike and Spock instead of getting Greenwood (?) and Quinto back so at least people who like the Kelvin movies have someone to latch onto. Instead Kurtzman is anti-catering to the audience willing to pay for CBS All Access.
Everything JJ touches these days dies,
I call it like I see it a real shame too I'm a bigtime Star Trek & Star Wars fan and both of these franchises have fallen on their faces and I don't know if they can be salvaged......
(Wow that was hard to say as a true fan)
I wouldn't know what it's like to "tank" sure-thing franchises and to keep getting opportunities do die for.
he's making star wars episode 9 now
2nd Amendment Sling LLC politics is in Star Trek script since.. forever.
Beside, there’s no outlandish SJW stuff in kelvin trek
I quit watching SW when Dunce-ney took over.
Star Trek has a history of mediocre to crappy entries...and it bounces back...it can be salvaged.
Star Wars went from amazing without exception to utter crap....again without exception...so its done for good...at least where quality is concerned.
Miss the good old days when TNG is on TV and the country believe in science and future
Sorry, it seems we are the Mirror Universe, no federation but a space Force...
Holy shit, Maddin, that's an apt comparison!
The cable TV channel Icons and Heroes runs 5 hours of Star Trek every weekday starting at 6pm! The show an episode of all the good series (Yes, including Enterprise, I know some don't like it, but the Klingons looked like Klingons so in my mind it counts). They show Voyager, DS9, TNG, Enterprise, TOS, and even some of the animated series. H&I is a great channel and comes with the basic package (where I am).
Funny, I didn't think about it that way; that the decline of society would be directly paralleled by the decline of Star Trek. But it's certainly worth mentioning. The Tea Party has been quite successfull in substituting science and future with fairytales and faith.
ratatatuff It is not just one political party or one group that's shifting the nation's view of the future towards dystopian. The irrational fear of nuclear power, vaccine, GMO, autonomous vehicle, AI and the realization of overpopulation, climate change, race war, water war could be upon us make the entire society fear the future. We can see the popularity of dystopian dramas and the waning of hard Sci-Fi as a symptoms of this outlook.
Star Trek fans, the ones who love the original Gene Roddenberry canon, are the people Paramount and CBS must cater to and appease. We have stayed with the series and films since the beginning, and we are the ones who purchase merchandise and have kept what Gene created alive. No supposed "new fans" exist and are not really interested in Star Trek and its legacy. Trying to reinvent Trek and making it some generic style bland science fantasy films or series, will never work and always fail. Until CBS and Paramount cater to true fans, they will lose money and their "products" will fail.
As hard as it is to hear, this demographic you just mentioned constitutes a tiny percentage of moviegoers such a studio needs to attract. Whilst the only bastions of Trek are the poorly concieved STD and the Star-Wars-ised Kelvin movies, there will be no newcomers to the 'good Trek' fanbase, outside of nerdy kids already into sci-fi. This decline had already set in with ENT, which is still miles better than STD.
Well said The Smoking Dog!
AMEN!!
Loved all of them TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY. And I agree Sisko was awesome.
THose who forsake old fans for new ones deserve neither.
Really?!?! Into Darkness underperformed due to loss of momentum? Uh no... it's because they took the greatest Trek movie/story arc of all time and shat all over it.
Think you mean Shatnered all over it...oh wait no, that would have been better...
BOOM
I never was that impressed with the whole Khan thing, either in the original series or this new reboot. The publicly stated point of the new universe reboot was to do new things with the star trek franchise....then they make another movie about fricken Khan. What's the point? So I chose to save my money from then on. I didnt want to see the original ST movies being rehashed with some characters swapped and some Shamylam--esque twist.
+Rob K Music Totally agree.
Rob K Music I thought it was great same with Beyond.
Star Trek Beyond was trapped between horrible preview trailers and a tragically awful Fake Kahn Darkness. It never stood a chance. It was the first of the "new" movies that I actually liked.
It also wasn't that good and it was far too expensive.
@@mabusestestament "Wasn't that good"? That's not what I've been hearing. I hear it's the best of the reboot films and the one that feels the most like Star Trek. And quality doesn't always correlate to financial success, or vice versa. Even really good movies flop.
Star Trek IV: A Voyage Home is one of my favorite Star Trek movies, and there's almost nothing to it. Most of the film is them walking around present day. Filmmakers have lost sight of what actually makes a good movie I think.
Excellent point.
Faffy Waffle They didn't lose sight. Movies are all about the agenda first and story second
Agreed! Fewer special effects, fewer new technology, just a very good, very funny and intriguing story with an interesting moral at the end. I absolutely loved it, and never really thought about the fact that it really wasn't special effect heavy. Good insightful comment anyhow. Now I'll have to go watch that one again on VHS! ;)
Voyage Home had something most movies today don't have: great writing. Tarantino might be able to write something decent but not sure how it needs an R rating unless he adds a lot of swearing and blood spray.
That was a horrible movie! It felt like a low budget TV show.
If Paramount had 2 brain cells to rub together they would hire the fan film people to make high quality low budget Star Trek movies and fire Bad Robot all together. Axanar is exactly what the fan base wanted and Paramount needs to turn a high profit on a low budget and have fandom itself promoting the movies and media. This franchise has a goldmine in all the fan fiction sets and fan knowledge and should be making a fortune catering to the core fan base and expanding outward. This is simply not possible with the flawed idea of making Star Trek movies as old fashioned science fantasy blockbusters. It is time for new thinking on this subject from forward looking visionaries to come into managing this franchise.
Axanar is fucking shit loads better than this new crap. That's why it was killed off. It showed how badly the studios were treating the franchise...
Agreed. Axanar was real Star Trek. JJ f--king Abrams' did nothing but shit all over the franchise.
mrparanormalmobius hollywood only cares about money, a younger audience, and being pc. They will remake this AGAIN for a quick profit.
That is what makes the least since. Are no NuTrek products and no profits for the studio or the investor. The only profit is for Bad Robot to be paid in advance to make these. Everyone else is losing and Paramount is all but Bankrupt and screaming for income. If they do not turn this around they will end up being liquidated.
mrparanormalmobius I dont agree man, they've got so many liberal PC reboots and remakes in the works, and a targeted PC audience to give a care about the old fans. The last jedi for example turned over a nice profit for Disney. As much as people bitch, they can keep making these, or just tank this franchise and start over. Look at STD ans cbs all access. It's gotten another seadon green light and a deal for 4 more new SJW star trek shows.
Tarantino is doing a star trek too.
It's pretty fucked unless a conservative comes along like me who directs things right. What's very sad is that Rick Berman pretty much gave up on star trek during Enterprise. Nemesis was good and the canon fans too harsh, like they were with Lucas. So basicly hollywood can keep destroying franchises and the next generation of sheep and zombies will eat it up.
Why do people pay to get all access, or paid to go see more Abrams movies?
Ha, so they rejected a script for being too "star trekky" but they're surprised the fans didn't show up?
And what's this bs about it being "well received" by fans? We all know the critics are pretend fans who basically work for the studio,
The movie failed, the fans hated it.
The end
I've heard Tom say in a stream that he likes Into Darkness. I don't know why because the flaws of that movie are so apparent, but I won't say people don't genuinely like that movie. I just think they weren't paying attention to what was happening on screen. Everyone points to how Kirk & Spock don't know who Khan is, but they always miss the bigger problem with that scene: why would Kirk believe Khan in the first place?
To recap, after Khan is arrested by Kirk, Kirk goes to speak with him. Kirk is seething mad at Khan for gunning down Pike and the Admiralty Board. Kirk hates Khan. After Khan makes his reveal, Khan gives Kirk a series of coordinates to Admiral Robocop's secret base. Next scene, Kirk calls Scotty on a Nokia flip phone to check out those coordinates for him. Why would Kirk look into the coordinates?
Because plot. That's really the problem with Into Darkness. It's not the pointless references or the outright lies to preserve the mystery box or Alice Eve in her underwear (that's actually wonderful). It's as Jay from RLM said, the plot is contrived from the start. The only reason people like it is because those lens flares make everything shiny and chrome, so general audiences don't notice the flaws in the movie.
I like aspects tbf, but I argue it wouldn't have been AS bad as it was had they NOT had it be Khan, and just a new villain. I totally understand why people don't like it though. As a Star Trek movie it's horrible I aknowledge that (-Tom)
I think Beyond was the best of the bunch. But that's just me.
into darkness make everyone in the federation immortal. If you are dead, no problem just inject some magic blood and jesus is your uncle.
of the Kelvin timeline, 3 was hands down the best one, it's the only one that despite continuity issues I had with it (the Yorktown was a SHIP not a fucking spacestation and why the fuck did they have to make Sulu gay? even George Takei said that was dumb) I actually enjoyed watching.
I am a long term Star Trek fan, which I enjoyed before way before Star Wars even existed. It was corporate greed that created the mistaken expectation it work out as a big tent pole big dumb action franchise like Star Wars. It was about a team of friends who worked together to think solutions to their problems, who were intelligent. Also, instead of a reboot, why not try something new, something set after Star Trek: Voyager? Find some script writers to come up with a trilogy of movies, hire some undiscovered new actors with a set contract for three films. film all three at the same time, then release them Lord of the Rings style. Script is more important than the director. Star Trek fans want a Star Trek-y movie, not a Star Wars movie.
agreed. They need to go further into the future. The New Patrick series might be the right direction. Introduce new characters, new aliens, new planets, exploration. Stop rebooting everything, it never works. The new TV show is miserable for that very reason, another reboot, it's technology even the ship itself makes NO sense in the Trek timeline. They have tech Kirk didn't have and they are years before?!?!? It's shattering the Trek timeline AGAIN. I'm not even commenting on the horrible lead character. Someone slap whoever is in charge. You can't rewrite Trek...can't do it. Too much history, will piss off too many fans, move forward, something new.
Thank you. I'm so tired of reboots. Take it into the future please.
Couldn't have stated it better myself
Star Wars was a throwback to the 30's & 40's movie serials. It was never supposed to be an action film.
I've sometimes thought going into the past might be cool; showing the battle of Axenar; the early years of the UFP; Garth, Pike and Garrovick (Kirk's first CO) as friends...you definitely get a quality trilogy out of that. If going into the future, maybe look at the eventual arrival of the Kelvans from Andromeda (q.v. "By Any Other Name"), and how a certain faction among them still want to conquer the Milky Way.
Anyway, good comment and I heartily agree.
Star Trek 4 was released in the 80s and starred William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelly.
Ha,ha...You’re in the wrong century STAR TREK movies man.This new version of STAR TREK 4 are for the 21th century audiences.
Chi Chu Star Trek 14...
Yep I agree this new stuff is crap
@@Chu3505 And you're in the wrong fandom if you think saying that isn't going to get you lynched. The Abrams series is a travesty and should never have happened. Discovery and Picard are Star Trek in the 21st century. Star Trek, Into Darkness, and Beyond are collectively an abortion.
@@MarkTuson You are just some old lonely weebs who cant accept some new stuff and wont see that the new Star Trek movies are not bad. Also Picard is really cool so far
I saw the very first Star Trek episode the night it aired and was hooked from the start! I've loved all the Trek series, but the movies a little less. When Star Trek with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto premiered, I was wowed by how much the actors resembled the original characters and loved the movie, but the two subsequent movies were not only too far from the original Roddenberry canon and timeline but there was too much emphasis on spectacular explosions and not enough on character development. Special effects are fun but it's Gene Roddenberry's hopeful vision of the future that breathed life into the series and kept it going for all these years.
so did I! I was 11-1/2 years old.
They show the digitally mastered original series on Horror Channel everyday here and it's so dated now. They also show TNG, Voyager and Enterprise after each end their runs and it's surprising how modern TNG still feels today!
This current crop of ass hats making star trek will never understand that.
effects were awful and choatic and made the ships look like dinky toys.
I grew up.on the original series but this last show by CBS sucks and not a fan of the Kelvin since it retreads old plots but would enjoy it if they made a time travel with characters from.each show
I can’t believe Paramount had the balls to go ask CBS to pull the plug on their merch so Paramount can promote its’ merch... There’s a certain level of arrogance to it that makes me really hope CBS responded by giving them two middle fingers while laughing them out of their offices.
the reverse vulcan salute
As if that was going to make a difference, unlike marketing idiots who think people are buffoons, in reality people clearly are perfectly capable of differentiating between toy lines, and eliminating one isn't going to make people buy the other.
A Star Trek movie "too Star Trekkie"? No wonder this production was so troubled from the beginning with two competing parent companies to answer to. Bad call on CBS's part.
I would freaking go in a Star Trek Movie that has only 2 times the budget of a TNG TV episode if the script is good.
too "star trekkie" probs meant like the TNG movies that were just big screen tv episodes rather then actual movies.
Money money money and not about the fans, Gene would be turning in his grave.
Sort it out!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone once told me in all seriousness that "Bad Star Trek is better than no Star Trek". I replied that the moment they realized that we'd settle for bad Star Trek, that's all they would ever give us.
It appears that I may have been right.
Henglaar Yeah, I'd rather have no Trek than bad Trek as well. We've got decades of good movies and shows to fall back on, no need for the series to be dragged through the mud.
Are you sure they weren't talking about Brexit?
That isn't true for anything in life..
Yeah but we weren't getting good Trek. There still hasn't been a single production since 2002 that has advanced the story. Nothing but reboots and prequels.
The sad thing is it costs more to make the bad Star Trek; they're not doing it to save money, which I could understand, they're doing it because they don't know how to make the good stuff. Probably because they didn't grow up with it.
This is really heartbreaking considering the Kelvin-timeline was what got me into Star Trek in the first place.
Why cant the studios learn that quality is much more desired than quantity.
Shane P. Quality is hard, quantity is easy.
Sam Rhodes Yeah, but you'd think that executives would eventually learn that bad products tend not to sell nearly as well as well made products. They may not care about quality for the sake of quality but putting out a product no one wants hurts your bottom line.
Ez answer, OP.
More movies = More money
Money > Quality
Quantity gets them paid, they will give you just enought to keep you coming back. They then repeat that effect of nostalgia over and over and take your money. Quality simply is not profitable.
Let's define "Quality": Quality in TOS and TNG is the story line, the message embedded in them; you do not need fancy expensive actors either, both TOS and TNG casts started with onknwon actors, their success was the message in their scripts
Trek was initially about exploring strange new things, weird planets, strange cultures. I think all the Kelvin Timeline movies have taken place largely on Earth. What is an exploration vessel doing so close to home all the time? TOS was always on the edge of known space, too far out for a rescue ship. The brilliance of the story was that you never knew what was around the next star system. Kelvin is just contant combat with the next baddie of the week (or shall I say "decade"). All the wonder and beauty is gone, replaced by torpedoes. Remember TOS episodes like "The Empath". I don't think a weapon was fired in that whole episode. Remember "Arena" where Kirk spared the enemy because his mission wasn't conquest: it was seeking out new civilizations. Trek is not a comic book.
The Kelvin Timeline has not even started the Enterprise 5 year mission. All three movies take place before TOS even starts.
And kirk spearing an enemy or weapons not being fired the whole movie would bring into the office box even less than these ones did because the generation today that loves marvel movies doesn't care two shits about some badly cgi'd alien race or space that isn't dynamic..you have to understand, back then television, theater, and comics were the only places of wonder...today you have so many mediums that allow you to explore the new spaces yourself like in video games, and even create races and vessels you want to create....the wonders of the past are today either all available or obsolete, so don't expect things like star wars or star trek to gain the popularity they once did...these things are like terminator, relics from a different time and for a different generation.
I agree 100%! Their trying to make it all space battles with no substance. Hollywood doesn't have a clue on how to make a decent movie nowadays.
@@DevinMacGregor Yes it has, the beginning of Star Trek 3 he says it's been almost 3 years into the 5 year mission and at the end of Star Trek 2 is when they start the 5 year mission
Star Trek 4 is returning in 2023
Its dead Jim.
I bought Beyond on iTunes - its sitting there on my desktop - watched it once. - Who thought that combining Star Trek with Fast & the Furious would be a good idea.
Love that
it's never dead, what dies is your capacity for change.
and with it, your IQ
You hilarious worldtipper!!!
You can sum up the problem with Hollywood's modern attitude with 2 things you mentioned.
1. 'too star treky' in a star trek movie. they want the fans of the universe but want to throw out its lore. Not happening.
2. if it doesn't sell we have to take away all the stuff the fans want so they have to buy ours instead. Funny Star Wars / LFL tried that -dropping prequel and limiting original trilogy let alone the old Expanded Universe stuff thinking it would make sequel stuff sell more. Result: TLJ toys that Toys R Us and other retailers couldn't give away.
Simple fact: no matter what the franchise if you move in and think you can alter and reboot without losing original fans you are wrong. They will not follow you, and you can't make them buy the product. If you take away what they like they'll find another franchise to follow and spend that money on. I spent a fortune on Star Wars, I also have a lot of Star Trek. NONE of it is the new stuff. I have no problem with the actors of either: but I will not reward companies with my money for DECONSTRUCTING what were essentially our modern myths and taking the joy out of them. If you don't care about the old fans opinions then you shouldn't expect their money!
As a fan of classic Doctor Who.... agree with every word you just said.
codyw1 You mean people actually liked the original Who? I tried to watch it but It reminded me of a high school play filmed on VHS tape.. To each his own I guess. And those darleks with the toilet bowl plungers as hands, really?:-) :-) :-)
And this is coming from someone who likes the original Star Trek, I presume? lols Glass houses and all that... Classic Who got by on great writing, not something there's been much of in its hideous SJWed modern incarnation.
What you write is correct Rebel Je'Daii, but it's worse than that, the real problem is that they simply just can't write a single good story because they don't know what credibility and coherence is. They can't give any real motivations for the characters. Just like what was done with Star Wars since episode 7.
Post-modernist nonsense of there being no such thing as objective truth. if you think emotions are everything and there is not such thing as a coherent reality, how in blazing hells are you going to write a coherent story?
It won’t hurt my feelings if Kelvin dies. I’m not an Abrams fan. I thought Lost was dumb crap. Dude’s been way, way overhyped from the get-go. He didn’t do well for Star Trek, and his performance with Star Wars has been... rocky, at best. It’s unfortunate for the non-headlining cast and the crew that Abrams and Paramount screwed everything up as much as they have. Let Kelvin fade away.
Lost was an intelligent show that you had to watch from the beginning to get most of the rest.
Marius Riley they will probably remake it again and go SJW/PC libtard like STD. Jar Jar is a chosen troll who killed two franchises.
Yep, Alias was pretty crap too.
Joseph Bentley: No, you didn't have to watch it from start to finish because intelligence. Abrams and Lindelof fessed up years after it was over that there was never a grand plan, that it was made up as it went along, sometimes incorporating stuff they read that fans 'predicted' online might happen. Other times they read that stuff and went in other directions. LOST was a midseason replacement, and they were surprised to get picked up, especially since it was just a concept pilot they threw out there and didn't have a story in mind going forward. They *were* clever enough to keep fans hooked and falling all over themselves along the way, at least until the end.
JJ stuff is shallow, like an amusement park ride; a thrill while you are watching, but you go away with nothing.
It was doomed from jump street. Give us back the Roddenberry timeline, better writing, and less fluff.
Agreed
Another problem with Into the Darknes.was it was a reboot of the classic Star Trek movie Wrath of Khan.Which is still considered.The best Star Trek movie ever.
That's a HUGE point that I was really surprised he didn't mention.
Except it's not even really that for a whole third of the movie. It just lifts references from WoK for reference's sake and completely misunderstands the significance of those moments. Rewatch the Kirk death scene and you'll realize just how tonally inconsistent it is with the rest of the movie. It's a slow, somber climax but it's bookended with INTENSE ACTION. It's like getting post-orgasm tortured on screen.
And they lied about making something total different. Back then all the comments were, "please do not remake Wrath of Khan it was great". Then they remade Khan...how original.
Alex the trioll is back.happy to burst your buble.into the darkness is Wrath of khan remade.A teribe remake at that.
Worse than that, they didn't understand why Wrath of Khan was great in the first place. It's not about a mid-life crisis or Shakespearian blood oaths or about mortality, you know, themes people study in English class. No, ID was about 9/11 conspiracy theories and other such nonsense.
These types of vids are why I subbed to your channel. Love this format. One has to appreciate how much time it takes to research and piece these synopses together.
I hope they do a total reboot and go back the old Kirk that was not a clueless rebel without a cause (with new actor of course). The old Kirk graduated top in his class just like Picard. That's how you get to command the flagship. Yes, I am an old fan.
No more reboots!
Agreed! The new Kirk character doesn’t deserve to be captain. The movies should re-tap the spirit of Gene Roddenbery.
Start with a great story by a top-flight science fiction author, then adapt it for the screen. And by adapt, I don't mean throw it out and let some SJW write the same old propaganda that's destroying all entertainment.
Exactly. In the original pilot Gary Mitchell said that at the academy, Kirk was "a stack of books with legs" - NOT some bar-brawling brat!
And I'm sure that when the REAL Kirk finagled the Kobayashi Maru, he played it straight as long as he could - not eating an apple and smirking like a jerk.
I was too young for the original seasons, but I was raised in years and years of reruns.(Old, old fan, too.) Kirk did cheat on the Kobiyashi Maru test. Bus since it was always mentioned that he was the only person to survive it, not that he was just some cheater, circumstances must have been much more involved than has ever been explained. But at least he wasn't handed the Enterprise out of the captain's revere for his father. HUH? Very, VERY implausible, and it made me very uncomfortable with the story. (Only 'till the next thing blew up) - But I figured that I paid for a movie, save the intellectualizing for afterwards, and watch the movie. I enjoyed the movie. That doesn't mean that I thought it was a Trek movie.
I would rather rewatch ST1234 or 6 than rewatch any of the new trek. Just my 2 and I doubt I'm alone on this.
I never cared for the Kelvin Timeline. The idea of 2 officers fighting for Command of Starfleet’s Flagship is absolutely Ludicrous! I Love Star Trek but the Kelvin Timeline has failed to impress, I liken it to “Stargate Universe “ The Real Turd though is ”Star Trek Discovery” and boy is it a Turd!!!
Anthony Pegues Gee thanks, I was trying to forget about the existence of Stargate Universe, but I guess considering the subject matter, it was impossible not to think about it anyway. Another franchise destroyed because they ignored the true fans in favor of looking for a new audience.
What ever you do, avoid contact with STD!
Scrap the Kelvin tineline. Come up with an original Star Trek film (new ship/crew) and give it more of a feel of old Trek mixed with new filmography. Give us old guard fans something to be excited about.
The best Star Trek has always been about family, and tackling tough, ethical questions while projecting space travel as a majestic nautical/naval affair.
These current producers just don't get that.
You're kidding yourself if you think that. There is no what they would take a nine figure risk without doing crazy research. They did however choose to make an almost entirely new franchise.
Yup. And their entirely new franchise flopped.
And without lens flares.
Kids won't go to the pictures to watch that though! And seen as under 25's are probably the cinemas best client age fast action packed films will out do films that make you think and reminisce! Unless you can make cheap films with cheap actors your not going to break even and if there cheap and the actors are cheap because there not very good there going to crap and get bad reviews making no money! I think it's called catch 22! Your best bet is a TV series with average stars and the money being made by commercial rights.
You obviously didn't see 'Beyond." Movies are more than the experience in the theater. They are a development process, from script to screen, with an army of collaborators. Yes, each individual film needs to stand on its own--no "homework" involved or the film is a failure--but they all undeniably carry the baggage of what came before, in terms of genres, cliches, franchises, actors. Everything that appears on the screen has weight. Star Trek: Beyond not only is a rip-roaring good time all on its own, but for the first time since the series "reboot," and arguably for the first time since the original cast left the screen in Star Trek Six (or Generations, if you're into that sort of thing), the people in charge of shepherding the Star Trek Universe towards the multiplex remembered what was at the center of that universe: a family.
Abrams has managed to kill both "Star Trek" AND "Stars Wars" in part through participation and association.
JJ only damaged Star Wars a little, Rian Johnson killed it dead dead dead.
Oh, the Quentin Tarantino isn't directing a Star Trek movie in the Kelvin timeline? Well, gotta say, that's actually a huge relief.
x-rated star trek lolz not rzrated
Only if you don’t have an open mind.
@@imfsresidentotaku9699 how tf did you get to this video? It's over 6 years old now!
Simon Pegg and Karl Urban are (to me ) the best parts of the new Star Trek movies. I'm a big fan of the old Shatner/Nimoy franchise, so I wouldn't be too upset if these new movies stopped here. Forget Star Trek, get Karl Urban in negotiations for a new Dredd movie :D
Mark Caswell hes supposed to be interested in the mega city one tv show if Dredd has a suotable role in it and not just shoehorned onto it for fan service.
the show will tell tales from around the city instead of being all about Dredd.
i hope netflix picks it up.
I doubt they'll make another Dredd movie after the last two flopped. I'll agree that Karl Urban did a great job as Dredd and he should have continued doing it. But Hollywood is all about the bottom line and making money. They're not going to risk another Dredd movie unless they're assured that it's going to bring in the big bucks.
If the Netflix series gets good press, assuming they pick it up of course, then maybe we'd see him reprising the role on the big screen.
That is true, the Hollywood studios are interested in making money, not a movie to please the 2000 AD fans. I've been a Dredd fan since he first appeard in the late 70's, and Karl Urban's portrayal was (to me) almost perfect (Judge Dredd does not remove his helmet Mr Stallone). I hope the Netflix series with Karl Urban will at least appear, even if we don't get another big budget movie.
+Mark Caswell Yeah that helmet thing in the original Sylvester Stallone movie bugged me as did just about everything else in it. It just wasn't Judge Dredd.
I'd argue that the Sylvester Stallone movie was actually more Dredd than anyone gives it credit for. The problem is how cheesy it came off as a live action... but the dialogue was almost spot on for comic book storyboarding. You could take snapshots from the movie, box in the dialogue, and turn it all into a comic book. The reason why Dredd was better as a movie, was it took the heart and soul of the comic but adapted it to the live action. Urban's dialogue and delivery was still short enough to be like the comics, but it didn't come across as cheesy.
Would have succeeded if they'd advertised it properly. There was no hype for it. Hell, I only found out about it a couple weeks before release. I was still there on opening night, but there was no time to get an opening weekend audience going. Plus, lots of people hated the 3D format (and the extra money per ticket), while Dredd showed in theaters only in the 3D format. It was done beautifully in 3D, but that turned a lot of potential audience away.
Does the rejected script for Star Trek Beyond still exist in its entirety? I'd love to read what the studio considered "too Star Treky" to be put in a Star Trek movie.
That was my very first thought!! "Too Star Treky" may be just what we needed- wanted.
I bet InfoWars found it and that's really why they were banned from everything.
My god I think you have it..everything makes sense now.
I love Star Trek, and personally loved the 2009 movie and Into Darkness. Beyond got as many stars from me as it had warp scenes. But the new cast did a brilliant job with the youth and volume of old and loved characters. Its a shame what happened with Beyond.
JJ Abrams is still lost, what a joke
I loved the new series but its smart for the Chris's to hold firm because why do favors for a studio.. They both have big movies coming for DC and Marvel.
Jar Jar Abrams destroyed Star Trek. I could care less what Paramount does from this point on. The one positive I can see come from this is less money spent on action/effects and more screen time spent on character drama. The real bedrock of Trek.
Redsyrup Make it so.
You mean you "COULDN'T care less". 🙄
"The one positive I can see come from this is less money spent on action/effects and more screen time spent on character drama."
That's a very good point.
Pine was the perfect Kirk. Too bad.
He really did nail it, didn't he? The line "So get some more guys and it'll be an even fight" summed up his performance beautifully.
Yea it's a bloody shame. The series could have been awesome if they had stayed true to trek and not turned Sulu gay....I hope they burn in hell for that.
Pine should be the next "Captain America" in Marvel when the "human Torch" contract is up!
Yep. As a potential investor having "the first female Star Trek directory" makes me want to hand over gobs of cash.
The Kelvin timeline stories were an abortion made only to support a lame business decision.
They really don’t need Hemsworth at all; in fact, bringing him in would have been foolish. But Pine leaving sinks the series.
And you know, good riddance to it. They gave themselves a golden opportunity to explore the Trek universe by recombining plot elements in fun new ways. But when they had years to work on _Beyond,_ they shat out a dull, by-the-numbers snoozefest that might as well have been a random VGR episode.
I liked all three movies and was looking forward to the fourth with some trepidation since bringing Kirk's dad back could have been great or gone terribly wrong. I was also not looking forward to how they were going to handle Chekov being gone.
Of course, my interest in the this series and the new movie could have been that I'm a Pine and Hemsworth fan. If Pine really is out and, if Paramount is not posturing about making a Star Trek 4, I would be no longer be watching. They should forget about the female-director pandering and hold out for Tarantino's Star Trek. No cast would be older than the original in all of their movies so better to do it right than to put out something for the sake of filling time until then.
6mil $ for what 6-7 months of part time work...they are just as bad as sports players going on strike...kidnapping the film industry like that...forcing ticket price increases and expensive water down drinks and overcooked foods ...greed all greed. what ever happened to honor...
They would have replaced Yelchin with another actor to play Chekov.
Cressida Troylus Might as well do that with Pine, then.
Pine is a lead character. Not as easy. Chekov was a supporting character.
When I think about this movie franchise, my mind recalls a couple of lines from Star Trek VI.
Spock: They (the movies) are dying.
Kirk: Let them die!
LOL.
I remember saying that.
Kirk: "Did it occur to you we were due to stand down in three months. We did our bid for King and Country."
I am reminded of an old Vulcan proverb, "Only Nixon can go to China."
How long did ya sit around, digging so deep, desperately seeking to come with some 'apt' Trek dialogue to express your feelings so.. so.. Er.. actually, if that was the best you could come up with, I really wouldn't have bothered!!! ('"Spock! Spock! - One of you, anyway!! - Vulcan nerve-pinch over here, please!!!")
A female director isn't a selling point for investors per se. Like any director, it depends on her track record and SJ Clarkson doesn't have one as far as this type of film is concerned. What appointing a female director DOES do is guarantee a ton of free publicity as it is touted as an advancement for women. Such free publicity is, of course, worth something as it ensures a lot of visibility (and, some argue, favourable reviews from critics reluctant to criticise a female director) but it can also backfire as audiences can take against movies where they think the studio has put virtue signalling above quality.
I was rather proud of Avery Brooks when he denied the title of being "the first black captain of Star Trek." He wanted to be recognized as being considered the best actor for the role, not being a token black man to make a token landmark role.
In other words, put people in jobs because they appreciate it and can fill the job adequately, not because it creates a historical landmark.
Man I was so disappointed when I heard it was cancelled. I was pretty excited for it when I heard Chris Hemsworth was going be George Kirk again. It would’ve been epic to see George and James interact. Also the fact that Chris Hemsworth and pine will both be working together and doing interviews together, it would’ve been awesome.
Ah but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.
We dont need more of Kelvin Timeline, we Need after TNG,DS9 Or Voyager just like Star Trek Online Storys
We need some more story from the sto universe even if its in book form
Ya totally expected them to make a Voyager movie after Nemesis, but alas Voyager never got it's moment on the big screen.
Janeway had a cameo scene with Picard in Star Trek: Nemesis though.
Star trek online stories however well intended, are just trash B grade acting and production quality. I'd rather they just let trek rest for another 10 years. No need to flog a dead horse
My thoughts exactly. Something like 'Star Trek Odyssey' based on the Enterprise F
"How will you look back on the Kelvin timeline movies?" - A massive waste of potential and resources - there was so much room for interesting stories and characters, but instead they decided to go full tent-pole Marvel blockbuster knockoff. As for how it relates to Trek lore, I give it as much importance as one the "quantum realities" in the TNG episode Parallels - an alternate universe that is a best a novelty to watch but ultimately means nothing to the Prime Trek events other than maybe the (assumed) destruction of Romulus.
+Morality124
_"A massive waste of potential and resources - there was so much room for interesting stories and characters, but instead they decided to go full tent-pole Marvel blockbuster knockoff."_
Corporate thinking process is amazing, isn't it? The assumption is that a movie is only good if it makes the most money.
Therefore, only Marvel-style action movies are any good (because they make the most money).
Therefore, the only way to make a good movie is to make movies the way Marvel does.
Therefore, the only good writers are the ones who can make Marvel movies. But you can't actually get the writers from Marvel... unless they switch sides, since Marvel is the competition.
Therefore, the only good writers are the people who promise to make the best Marvel movie they can make, even though they aren't employed by Marvel (can't imagine why 😒 ).
What we're left with is a bunch of skill-deficient assheads who don't even know what made Marvel's movies good - let alone anyone else's - making poor knockoffs of other people's work in franchises not even meant to resemble Marvel, instead of enriching the lore of the series they write for.
so the name of the next movie could be in search of kirk
Or "Spock and Sulu Go To Planet Whitecastle"
Maybe the Search for Roddenberry?
The Trek Awakens
..or ..' The Search For Dr McCoy's : ' Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a repairer of J.J. Abram's and Paramount's shits '.
Star Trek : The Wait for Picard...
The Kelvin timeline wouldn't have happened anyways, ever hear of the Starfleet's Temporal Division? They would've made sure whatever changes Nero did to the timeline would've been undone.
Case in Point:
Star Trek Voyager: Future's end Parts 1&2 - Captain Braxton travels back to prevent a catastrophic incident, WHICH he himself actually instigated believing that it was Voyager that was responsible for
Star Trek Voyager: Relativity - Captain Braxton enlists Seven of Nine to go back in time to when Voyager was still at Utopia Planitia ship yards before leaving for the badlands, only to discover that it was he himself from further in the future who had travelled back in time
Star Trek DS9: Trouble with Trebbles - Defiant is taken back in time by an disgraced Klingon who wanted to try and kill Captain Kirk
in the words of Captain Janeway "I hate Temporal Mechanics!"
Ah the Guys who never come Late
That would make an interesting Star Trek movie/show, I wonder would they call them time force? (Is it ok saban?)
No, they don’t correct every single timeline infraction. The Annorax ran over the Delta quadrant with no intervention. Besides, they’re idiots. They get entire races wiped out of existence. Plus, with the way time travel works in ST, if a faction loses they can just try again. Each time getting closer to their goal. They didn’t intervene in First Contact. The whole earth got assimilated. The Borg opened up transwarp conduits all over with no intervention. Even if they did show up theres no guarantee they’d be the technological superior faction with the power to stop the aggressor. Although I’d give anything to see pizza cutter Enterprise J in a fight..
Imagine this: They announce a new movie in the "Alien" franchise. They announce that the main characters are Ripley and the crewmembers from the first movie, and it takes place on the Nostromo. A massive hype builds up. You go to the theatre to see it. Turns out it's a Marvel-style comedic-action movie. You go on the internet to express your outrage at being deceived. People call you a fanboy and tell you they loved it. The movie makes oodles of money and spawns two sequels.
That was JJ's Star Trek for me.
Now that I think about it, it was probably "Aliens" to some people. xD
(Except "Aliens" is totally awesome. Doesn't detract from the original's glory either.)
+Headrock the worst though are the peeps that moan at you for not liking a certain part of a movie because of actual nonsense, that they say was explained in some book, comic or video game... movies are supposed to be self explanatory... I shouldn't have to go do research to find out the info. lol
I hope we get Alien: Xeno due to the Disney/Fox deal.
im sorry but everyone died from the first movie and they were separate before that mission, and I hate to burst your bubble but they are making another aliens
The Kelvin time line is a kick in the teeth of Star Trek fans. So you can forget about most of us going to see it.
Paul Frederick Lol... I'm glad you think you speak for everyone. Conceded much?
I speak for me. I can read what others have posted on the subject too. They think the same as I do.
Paul Frederick, you are right!
Thanks. Right or wrong it is my honest opinion.
I suppose it is not just based simply on an opinion but on a statement, and this observation is shared by many fans as can be seen in the comments.
This is a fast-paced and high-density video. You present a lot of information pretty without losing the listener. I like your format! Very good video. Very good history lesson.
preach... real content, not RUclips content.
As a young guy, I became a Star Trek fan when these new movies came out. For me, Star Trek is nothing without Chris Pine. He is the heart and soul of this franchise, and without him, I think they should just end it for now. A shame, as it could've been epic to see Pine & Hemsworth together on screen :/
Oh, the Kelvin timeline....The first movie was a good action movie, but a terrible Star Trek movie. Wrath of Not-Khan lost me by lying about Khan. And Beyond was maybe 20 minutes of fun material surrounded by a lot of garbage and yet another Starfleet-officers-are-the-real-bad-guys plot. I won't mourn the timeline for a second.
All in all, its pretty sad how fighting over rights has ruined both the movies, and the tv show, and the fan project that was probably going to be the best of the bunch. (Of course, terrible producers were also to blame for those first two...)
The 1st Star Trek (2009) was not even a good action movie. there was too much non-sens, incoherence, improbabilities. It's a mountain of stupidities chained one behind the other. Is it credible to blame Spock for what happens to romulus ??? The travel through black hole is impossible and why would that allow to travel back in time? Why nero did not try to prevent the destruction of romulus instead of waiting for Spock, why dig a hole in Vulcan when you can use "stupid magical red matter" that creates black holes? etc... The list is very long, probably one of the most stupid movies in the history of cinema, if not the stupidest....
I had hopes that they were going in the right direction with the third one, but apparently it's a lost cause now. I think the setup had a lot of potential to be better than it was.
I think the new Star Trek movie by JJ was GREAT! Sure it might have flaws and inconsistencies. I'm not a fan of the whole Kelvin timeline thing. I would have rather seen the true timeline in the past, but.. se la vie.. nothing is perfect.
So the first script for Star Trek Beyond was thrown out cause it was "Too Star Trek-y"...
Coincidentally, it's about time those pesky xenomorphs were phased out of the Alien series!
(The sad part is I believe Ridley Scott actually said that...)
Ridley Scott actually wanted to make movies based on scientology, you know...man meeting their god .
Scott once said in an interview that the Xenomorphs were supposed to only be a one time thing, but fox that the critters more than a film on philosophical theory of finding man's creators.
@@MrDEMarq Unfortunately, whatever his original vision/thoughts on the matter, it doesn't change the fact that the guy's head has truly disappeared up his own anus. From the last two films he did in the series, I'd say it's for the best that this particular vision didn't get realised.
@@Limbitation I'm just surprised that Tom Cruise wasn't licking that said ass.
Curious to see what Orci's script was like. Sounds interesting.
Atomic Fanbot Remember that he also wrote Transformers 1 and 2, as well as The Amazing Spiderman 2.
I want to see Erik Jendreson's script for the ORIGINAL Star Trek 11, which would have been a Romulan War movie. memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Beginning
Kurtzman and Orci are terrible writers. Orci's Star Trek 3 would have been awful.
Who wants to bet that the "new" Star Trek 14 script conveniently written by Orci's co-writers for 13 is the same script with some retooling?
That definitely sounds like a better premise than Nero time-travelling for revenge.
All of this is very sad because the Star Trek reboot looked very promising. I am a lifelong Star Trek fan and I loved the alternate story lines (I even wasn't as annoyed by the new Khan).
An interesting insight to the bumpy ride the Kelvin timeline has had. I didn't know about the CBS/Viacom/Paramount/Bad Robot relationships and how complex they were.
This was well-paced and informative, my only (small) complaint would be to either find a lot more stock images or use something else entirely, seeing the same dozen or so photos for almost half an hour was a bit tedious. Thank for putting this together!
I'm 99% with you there...thus why I mentioned it was just a minor criticism.
Probably all the still shots are in response to CBS being quasi-illegally gung-ho about video rights infringement on any channel that even slightly critisizes it's product. Apparently, It's easier for them to attack someone else's work than defend thier own.
Didn't all of this happen in 1979 with the huge budget mess Star Trek The Motion Picture? They slashed the budget, got a better director, and gave the fans a REAL movie with Wrath Of Khan.
Star Trek 1 and 2 were pretty good in my opinion.
Angus Nyg : If you actually enjoyed the 1979 STTMP, then you are expelled from Starfleet Academy! Turn in your uniform cadet because that film was a fiasco! Big budget, big effects (obviously done to make it more like Star Wars) and directed by Robert Wise who had not even seen an original episode. This awful mess was titled by REAL Trek fans as "Where Nomad Has Gone Before" referring to the script pretty much ripping off the plot lines of a few original episodes. You are stripped of rank! DISMISSED!
That the first movie was essentially a bloated version of one of the TV episodes was really disappointing. The second, which built upon one of the episodes was far better, and likely the only reason the movies were able to continue onward (which ultimately turned out to series of misses and hits like the first two).
They brought in Harve Bennett, a TV producer who had been successful, and knew how to produce with a tight budget. Paramount's TV division actually made Wrath of Khan, so knew how to work on a tight production schedule. That's why it was so successful and well-liked: It was a major TV movie for the big screen, and kept itself within the shadow of TOS. BTW, one of the reasons the first movie sucked was the obvious rush job on sfx. The 'Director's Cut' DVD restored the planned effects, and looks a lot more professional and makes the story seem to advance at a little quicker pace.
Originally ST:TMP was supposed to be Star Trek: Phase II television series. Then Star Wars happened and the studio decided to do big budget films. IMHO: mistake.
"A little too Star Trek-y" wow...for real?
Supes Me, It reminds me of when the Sci-Fi channel canceled "Farscape" and someone at Sci-Fi had said the show was too sci-fi.
They want to make Avengers-type money knowing thats a property for "nerds" and they're afraid of making Star Trek too "nerdy". Paramount must be run by a bunch of former jocks, no wonder they got a Fast and Furious director to make Beyond.
Yep, that says it all.
Reminds me of Casey Hudson calling a boss fight in Mass Effect 3 "too videogamy."
Star Warsy*
Smaller budgets better writers like the good old days
Star trek is no longer Star trek but a Star trek flavored action film. No thinking is required for the new version of this Trek. It's a blatant money grab.
its not a money grab, they said it flopped and the company is now heading for bunkruptcy
Its an alternate timeline. Get over it. Its still Star Trek. If you say its not youve clearly never seen the os, tng, ds9, voyager or enterprise, let alone any of the major feature films. The graphics/production upgrades are most welcome to the majority of us. Beyond sucked, just like many other star trek movies before it...that doesnt mean the entire kelvin timeline is garbage.
You mean it's now Star Trick!!.....
They should cast Vin Diesel as Captain Kirk - thats star trek!
@@bigcheesepuff1 Probably too busy making yet another Fast And Boring movie!
Having JJ make both Star Wars and Star Trek was a mistake. He should have stuck with only one.
Now it looks like both Scifi series will end badly.
I liked the 1st new Trek movie but Into Darkness (to me) wasn't good but the 3rd was however in total they were not as good as the original 6 Trek movies. I understand the JJ films were in a new alternate universe but Into Darkness still was not good and that put to much pressure on ST Beyond to succeed.
It looks like the same fate will come to Star Wars, with a good Ep7 but and bad Ep8 and to much put on Ep9 to please fans.
I have a very bad feeling about this.
J.J.Abrams films are the most hated of each franchise he touches, in Star Wars somehow the actually good The Last Jedi got the blame despite The Force Awakens being the one that was actually bad. (Mission Imposible III is perharps the only exception)
Abrams movies are derivative. Even movies like Super 8. They're kinda good b/c they kinda remind you of a lot of other stuff you've seen. But there's not much new or exciting in them. At most, he plays with the visuals but I can get all I need out of the visuals watching the trailers. Case in point: They go through all this trouble to set up a new timeline so Spock can be different and so they don't have to be beholden to anything that's come before and then...for the second movie...it's a rehash of the ORIGINAL Star Trek II and a lame one at that. It makes no sense. It's lazy. And do I need to convince anyone that Force Awakens *is*, beat for beat, a retelling of A New Hope? Even Chewie's scream when Han is KIlled mirrors Luke's scream when Ben is killed in ANH. Abrams is mistaking 'nostalgia' for story-telling and dramatic content. Abrams should run a studio and stop trying to tell stories.
THe new star trek movies are awesome!!
Figrin Dan www.cc.com/video-clips/d6lpc8/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-j-j--abrams Start at 2:25. Abrams himself gives the best reason he should have never gotten that job.
Figrin Dan hi didn t make EP 8 and 7 was rehash off 4
Jar Jar Abrams took anything intelligent and interesting out of the franchise and dumbed it down, replacing plot with pretty kabooms and lens flares. It used to be the destruction of the Enterprise was an emotional experience, the ship had a chracter of its own...but Jar Jar sucked that right out and made it an every movie event. Bringing back Khan was the final straw, showing how little imagination the makers had and how little respect they had for the source material. Kirk was turned into a punchline, a two dimensional charicature and a Gary Stu. It's fun to make fun of millenials, but this series really was insulting to everyone, giving no audience member any credit for intelligence at all. Abrams and Lindelof are both so over-rated that it's ridiculous. In true Abrams style, he went on to wreck Star Wars next...turning The Force Awakens into nothing more than a bad version of A New Hope with a Mary Sue main character, publicly slamming the fans and pattting himself on the back for his genius. Yeah...screw you, Abrams.
DeeZee I'm starting to think you are not enjoying Abrams work...
Into the Darkness was a 9/11 analogy. Kahn basically being osama bin laden, crashing the ship into "American" buildings killing tons then retreating into enemy klingon territory(afghanistan). Then that seal team six ship that goes into klingon territory. and the correlations of it being destroyed with real life events. The whole movie was very distasteful. Especially since 9/11 was an inside job.
He did the same thing to SW, he can't write anything with any depth or intelligence.
I'm stealing "Jar Jar Abrams"!
I saw someone also refer to "Bad Robot" as "Bad Reboot", I want to steal THAT one!
There was a time where I would have been so excited for a new Star-Trek movie but not anymore. Recently Star-Trek like many of our beloved franchises are dead & should be left in peace. Something I thought I’d never say
Screw Pine and Helmsworth ……. give us the cast of Star Trek Continues and give us a weekly series …… lower production costs and greater return !!!!!!! HELLO !!!!!!!!!!
How large a brick do you think the makers of STD would drop if they did that? Or hire the Axanar guys on the cheap. Boom! Instant Star Trek success!
I went to a Star Trek convention in Sacramento, Ca. about three or four years ago. Tim Russ, the actor who played Tuvok in the Star Trek: Voyager series, was the guess speaker. Tim Russ also had a small part in Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country. He also reprised his role of Tuvok in the Star Trek fan film Star Trek: Renegades. During one of the panel discussions Tim Russ made an important and accurate observation that Star trek simply works better as a TV show, than a movie. I strongly agree. The character development, story lines, and history of Star Trek characters simply can not be developed in movies. I'm glad the Kelvin time line movies are ending. Its time to focus more on the original Star Trek time line and produce a Star Trek TV show that does not require viewers to subscribe to some special pay-perview CBS channel.
Movies have higher budgets than TV shows.
Most characters in Star Trek don't see much in the way of character development, each week the series largely resets back to default and Tuvok is himself one of the many examples of undeveloped/underdeveloped characters.
That's true. Even the first 6 movies were good because we were catching up with old friends from the TV series. By themselves, if audiences hadn't known anything about Trek, they just wouldn't have been much, really.
Trek works fine as movies as long as you have decent writers who respect what came before. The Wrath of Khan is still considered a high water mark for the classic movie franchise, with good character development in terms of Kirk's mid-life crisis and Khan's vengeance, not to mention the interplay between the big three characters.
I'm not sure I agree completely here. Your right about Tuvok but look at Tom Paris, or Harry Kim on Voyager, they developed a great deal. That said Voyager isn't a shining beacon of Star Trek Ideals anyway. Most of that was lost when TNG ended. Although post season 3 DS9 I think did a great job of balancing both Character Growth, Ethics, and drama with a more modern need for "Plot Worthy" action.
While I absolutely loved Karl Urban as Bones, and Zachery Quinto was the perfect actor to step into the shoes of Leonard Nimoy (and I even liked Chris Pine's Kirk.... eventually ^_^), I think its time for the Kelvin timeline to die and let the actors move on to projects that will promote their careers better.
I'm hoping that CBS somehow absorbs Paramount, so we can just forget this whole "Kelvin Timeline will replace Original Series Timeline" crap, and get back to making good Trek that ALL the fans will enjoy, not just the imaginary fans Paramount thinks will follow what they are pumping out.
The cast is good enough to head up their own stand-alone series, but they are so pricey that it would never happen.
1. Why would you hope CBS takes the rights back? They have no interest in using the rights.
2. I like Karl Urban, but he's a terrible Bones.
Karl Urban just has the play the heavies in about thirty gunslinger weaterns, movies to have a better idea on how to play 'Bones'.
Remember when Star Trek was great, and the Star Trek fan films were in high gear and the content was awesome. You know there where a lot of complaints about Axanar and there being the reason for basically shutting down the fan films. Well, that's all B.S, because CBS didn't want any competition with Discovery coming out. How great would it have been if CBS would have absorbed the fan films, fresher ideas, better content. But no, you have numerous trek fans boycotting and when Horizon gets over 9 million viewers and fan films get over millions of hits on there sites you have to ask that one big question? Who was ( or is ) making the better the Star Trek?
Part of the problem is the bean counters in charge of the studios who seem to think that big budget blockbusters are the only form of film that should be made. The sooner that they realise that flopping out their "Look at the size of my budget" epeens while vomiting out ever more formulaic movies is what is killing the industry the better.
I have no love of the JJ verse/Kelvin verse as there is absolutely nothing about it of interest to me, however, they at least made one decision I applaud. They made the wise decision to set it in it's OWN universe rather than declaring it a full on reboot. Sure it was purely a way to appease certain fans but ultimately it feels far more respectful to the past creators than the alternative.
I won't even start on STD and these other projects CBS is working on as I have nothing good to say about them.
Thank you for explaining. I was not aware that Startrek went down the drain due to greed
When "Into Darkness" just ended up being Khan.. I lost interest. Though director when he did Star Wars, did the same..no imagination, just copied prior Star Wars movie from the 70s
The only way to save star trek is to reassert the old time line.
Discovery proves you're wrong.
@eskreskao Nobody sees the old time line when they look at STD.
Discovery is bullshit at it's best.
The only way to save Star Trek is to hire writers that actually like and care about the franchise.
www.fanfiction.net/s/11107963/1/Spock-Unleashed More people need to read this
Paramount and CBS did a king soloman, split the baby down the middle and killed star trek. You can't have a present or a future without a past
to be honest the only actor I really care for, performance wise, is Urban. He's really good as Bones, the others are just meh
Looks like "It's Dead Jim" ... now let the filming of the feature length "The Orville" begin.
Bad Robot? More like Bad Reboot.
I like that!
Dont forget Orci and Kurtzman also made The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Erik Lerström kind like a Michael bay - has a very specific visual style you can almost just tell by the scene lighting
What with Abrams murdering Star Trek and now Star Wars, he truly is a harbinger of doom.
ReverendSyn 👍🏼
I saw a few of your videos; your videos are over 20 minutes long. I didn't think I would be able to sit through one person talking on and on. But holy crap, they were informative, they were straight to the point, and I watched them from beginning to end!
It seems to me, that everything J.J. Abrams touches, sparkles bright in the beginning, but turns into stone at some point. He is in there for the money, nothing more.
The first two films weren't even at all good, at all. They were both terrible, but hype seems to still sucker people into the theater. The 3rd film was OK, certainly not great, but it wasn't terrible. The first two films were incredibly stupid plot and writing wise, the 3rd was merely dumb.
To be honest, I 'm now entirely bored with the entire universe, and I'll never bother to pay money toward it again.
Perfectly summarised.
inyourfacetimmy he's George Lucas - he can do awesome work if a big personality is there to tell him STOP THAT'S DUMB.
Same thing happened with LOTR and the hobbit.
that sparkle is lens flare....
'nuff said
Imo if they'd make a Star Trek movie as nerdy as possible that would be a hit. True fans would love catching every hint, reference, and Easter egg.
From a financial standpoint, there is no reason for this to even be made. The only out and out financial hit of the new films was the first one.
At this point it seems like Paramount doesn't have many options in the first place. Unless Paramount can find investors the studio could go bankrupt within the next few years.
Zeno Blues Who do you see buying them out? Or do you think they'll be chopped into the business equivalent of fishbait?
Johnathon Haney considering how few big franchises they currently have I expect other companies will wait until Paramount's i.p.s and licenses are auctioned off
But will the Star Trek licence be part of that auction? I cannot see CBS allowing any other opposition company to make money from the Star Trek universe.
At most a company might get the alternate Star Trek license. CBS is still the holder of everything else.
Oh, please. Star Wars was obviously J.J.'s aim all along. He's always been an SW fan, whereas he'd never even watched an episode of ST before taking on the first film. He was auditioning to get the next SW film, that's clear.
And the jacklegs have done all they can to fuck SW up. It's like none of us can win with these people.
He's no Star Wars fan.
Some fan. All he's done is ruin Georges great story with destroyed Canon and killing off the main characters. He's and IDIOT!
I would be fine if they ended the trilogy. Better go out on a solid or slightly shaky run then have the 4th implode.
solid? other than the first 10 mins of the first one the movies were all utter horseshit.
Beyond was the best trek movie in like 25 years.
I loved all 3 films
I say they shoot for 6.. That'll give the Post Voyager Star Trek new series time to ramp up, and it's full circle...
queendsheena1 it's already ruined since 2009 and now STD.
Good bye Kelvin timeline. Sell the franchise to Netflix etc and make new ST series/movies.
paramount wouldn't get money from the films anymore, Netflix can barely afford to keep beyond available to stream
Selling the ip to Netflix or HBO is the best thing that could happen to ST. GoT is about to end (and with their laughably slow production schedule everyone has already forgotten about it). Orange is the new black is pretty much over. They both need something big desperately to keep people coming
Or just pretend it didn't fucking happen.
No not Netflix!!
I really must stop basking in the production troubles of both Star Trek and Star Wars, but I must point out that everything has a beginning, middle and end, and I think those two franchises, together with Doctor Who, should all BE LAID TO REST FOREVER MORE.
No Chris Pine, no fourth Star Trek film. Period!
If they make it without Pine or Hemsworth the film will sink quicker than the Titanic!
Which ironically was co-produced and distributed through Paramount!
Don't be too certain though. How many times have we seen Batman, Superman and Spiderman being played by different actors? Its time these overpaid overdemanding actors realised they aren't dispensible and can be replaced?
@@tsu8003 Yeah, that's true. However, those examples all had either RADICAL changes in visual style and feel (Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, and look what happened there) or were overall reboots!
@@dannyr2976 Well, just start again with a new reboot and totally new cast! That way we can get rid of Simon Pegg too!
The Khan re-make movie left me cold! All they did was reverse the roles of who got killed this time it was Kirk. Who really cares.
whenever I watch it, I skip the last 20 minutes.
Caleb Mitchell I pretty much skip the whole movie. It was that bad
This is precisely what happened in the ALIEN movie, PROMETHEUS. All the characters made the opposite decisions that characters made in the first movie. STUPID.
John Swanson And white washed the khan role
I have only seen the first reboot, at the theater. I have only the Blu-ray for the first re-boot. I have watched the second film streamed for free. I have not, nor will I watch the third film. Stop blowing up my favorite characters, ie The Enterprise.
They can make the TNG trilogy: fourth is TNG, DS9 is second and fifth film, and VOY is 3rd and 6th film. Than have the third trilogy: 7 is Enterprise, 8 is with Picard, Sisko and Janeway working together, and the last one is when Janeway, Sisko, and Picard go with Kirk and Archer. Kirk’s father is in the last movie.
I never got why they not at leadt tried to make a show with all TNG/DS9/VOY characters. This could have saved Star Trek.
JJ Abrams ruined Trek AND Star Wars. Amazing.
JIM IS DEAD TOO JIM
Bullshit. Soylo was the first commercial failure in the franchise's history and for VERY good reasons. No prequel ever lost money. If this trend continues, then Star Wars will die and not come back. The prequels did not take everything good about Star Wars and simply throw it away. And they didn't turn it into politically driven sludge. Red Letter Media got it exactly right "There's nothing special about Star Wars anymore".
JJ didn't ruin Star Wars. Don't project Rian Johnson's piece of garbage The Last Jedi onto The Force Awakens.
The entire reason The Last Jedi made so much darn money is because of the setup that JJ left for it in The Force Awakens. It was Rian Johnson's choice to ignore everything that happened and bastardize all the lore that was set up and the story that had the fans clamoring for more.
So before you go "JJ ruined Star Wars" think about why The Last Jedi made money. It sure wasn't because the fans hated The Force Awakens. It's because the majority loved or liked The Force Awakens and were excited about all the setup and answers that were coming in The Last Jedi. Rian Johnson did NONE of that and ruined the lore with his own terrible ideas.
That is why after that garbage attempt at a Star Wars film, no one went to go see Solo. So when you want to look at who "ruined" Star Wars, don't point at the guy who left a perfect setup and got the fans excited and talking for years about what the next film may offer, point at the guy who ignored it all and killed any anticipation for the 3rd film. That ain't JJ Abrams, it's Rian Johnson.
NatarisX a really interesting storyline would be Jar Jar coming back as the big baddie and reveal how him and little orphan Anikin were lovers.
The Force Awakens was a Star Wars film, made like a Star Wars film. If your biggest complaint is that it feels too much like the original trilogy or that it pandered too much to Star Wars fans. Well then that's a pretty big compliment.
But yes, keep bashing a Star Wars movie for reminding you of the original trilogy too much and pandering to much to Star Wars fans :) That seems like quite the sound argument. Got the opposite in The Last Jedi and we see how well that worked out.
JJ never wanted Trek. He just wanted to use it to do Star Wars. He wasn't trek fan at all. this split was a bad idea and both companies are suffering for it.
Just look at all the major long running franchises and all of them are failing barring Marvel and why marvel isn't. They don't shun the core fans liek the rest did and we see the results.
Which is ironic since the damage done to SW is far more severe storywise. You can scrap the JJ timeline and still have everything that was Star Trek being intact. Where in SW everything Disney has done is destroying what came before.
The political in fighting between CBS and Paramount has managed to alienate fans who are prepared to spend money on cinema, dvd, and even merchandise of trek. It's a cash cow that the studios have ruined with this kelvin timeline. Crash starships on to cities, destroy Vulcan, Beastie Boys and fuckin lens flare, really! FFS. They even destroyed fan films who knew more about the subject than they did. Axanar trailer was awesome. Thanks CBS and Paramount, why dont you grow up, scrap the kelvin timeline and make proper trek, its the only way they can make any money from AN EXISTING AUDIENCE OF MILLIONS OF FANS.
nothing wrong with the first two reboot films. third one was pretty much garbage. they are aiming too high. star trek films have never brought in loads of money they need to cut production costs.
Nothing wrong? In the reboot, engineering looked like a bunch of rusted pipes in an abandoned factory while the bridge looked like some disco tech parlor. Just wondering why they didn't destroy earth along with Vulcan and Romulus - it might have made more sense. But now I realize that they had to make it different enough in order to sell their little dolls. That's always a good reason to eliminate two out of the four planets which pretty much shaped the Star Trek universe. The other two being Earth and Kronos.
And don't get me started on the 'advanced' Romulus death ship with those chains hanging from everywhere. What a nightmare that movie was.
Watched the second movie on a flight back home to pass the time. Turned it off half way through to watch something better. I think it was the Chicken Little animated movie.
gotellbossc4t Well said, but why listen to fans...
Paramount has alienated fans of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers, GI Joe, and Star Trek. They seem to be taking every single franchise and mishandling them. And starting new ones like Monster Trucks? Why did they think anyone wanted to see that!?
@@moonmanvic fans generate cash. If you dont please fans, you dont make as much money. There are plenty of opinion clips and feedback on the internet and youtube so there is no excuse for failing an existing fanbase. Cinema is a Business to make money. Give them what they want. It aint rocket science, if you'll excuse the irony in that statement.
If it's not broke don't fix it keep the original Star Trek line always Gene roddenberry's dream of Star Trek should never die
I think that unless Gene was alive to sanction the Kelvin timeline, going against his writer's guidebook, would be evading the Canon of "Star Trek". If "Discovery" makes up a new fact about an original character-Ex.Spock having dyslexia-that would also be breaking Canon. Better to have a new character have dyslexia. This is probably why George Take I didn't want Sulu to be gay. His character was not described as such in the beginning-even if George is gay anyway.