I’m all for a remake of this trilogy with an actual thoroughline that doesn’t get chopped up and messy, but there’s nothing here that’s grabbing or engaging yet. It’s all very worn out “slow” shots with some tired “rubber house horror” imagery so far.
Wow, that looks terrible.
I wonder how excited people would get if they did make Star Trek 4 with those actors. It just seems like the timing is too late with that project.
However, I’m still interested in the potential Tarantino Star Trek.
Just recast Captain Kirk and anyone else who doesn’t want to come back. They’re all replacement actors, anyway. By turning over the cast every few films they can keep the costs down, and keep the Kelvinverse going for years without worrying about the actors aging out of the parts.
Nah, kill Kirk off. Have Tom Hardy reprise his role of Picard.
You can’t fool me; this is just more Sasquatch porn, isn’t it?
No. The kind of porn it is is right there in the title.
I was quite surprised when I saw the cover and the boyfriend was an actual bear and not like a big hairy gay dude.
Are you sure he isn’t just really hairy?
The art shows he clearly is really hairy.
But also looks like an ursine-type bear.
It’d actually be kind of cool to have Star Trek movies in an anthology format, with different ships and crews every movie.
That’s the idea around the one-off stories we’re getting between now and DISCO series 2
Yeah, I know, and I’m glad they doing that.
But as a format, I think it’d be an advantage for the movies, too, you know? It’d be easier to keep them to a mid-level budget, and really I think the last movies have shown that the audiences won’t come just because they love Kirk or Spock, or Pircard. Those days are over. So why not try something else and use the freedom to tell an entirely new space adventure story in the Federation universe?
Okay, so this would obviously appear to me as I’m just not a fan of sci-fi prequel or remake stuff. Sci-fi fans should be neophiles, and not clinging to nostalgia. But I think it also would be worth a try for a studio. TV has recently shown that people like anthology formats, so why not try that in the movies, too?
I think the problem is less that SF fans aren’t neophiles, but it’s seen as a harder sell to the movie-going public and studio execs unless there’s some level of brand recognition, and the perception is that the words Star and Trek, usually in alphabetical order isn’t enough on its own.
That was the original idea behind Discovery.
True, but that ship has used a displacement spore-hub drive to metaphorically set sail on that one.
I’m not sure those days were ever there. Most of Star Trek on TV and film has been fairly mid-level in financial performance and ratings. The original show was cancelled and it has never really done mega-bucks in the cinema. Even with inflation adjustment the best the franchise has done is $320m. ‘Solo’ which is considered a huge flop just did $50m more than that.
It does have a very dedicated audience though so mid-level budget is the key. Cost it right and it can run and run.
Pretty much what Gar said.
People respond to the familiar. ‘Star Trek’ itself is a brand, and it does the business it does by being something people know and feel positive about.
That enables new shows, new comics, new books etc. to launch into the market with a level of security.
But Disney are trying to expand their ‘Star Wars’ movies beyond the core story of the Skywalker family and the Force and we’ve already seen that it’s having problems.
Paramount would be gambling a lot if they tried to spin off movies with unfamiliar characters in them.
I’d love to see them do that. Get some good scifi adventure stories with cost control in place.