brokenbow
Sophomore
@brokenbow
Posts: 447
Likes: 104
|
Post by brokenbow on Mar 1, 2017 23:46:49 GMT
Personally I want one more from the rebooted Trek. Have everything come full circle, Kirk, Spock, Khan, George Kirk, and most importantly some Klingons.
Keep the budget trimmed even with added "star power". If they could make a 150M Trek picture again with a solid story and on par action with Beyond it could do Into Darkness bussiness bringing it to a profit zone.
Alternatively I wouldn't mind a fresh new crew just for the big screen, but I don't think they'll go that route. So maybe a TNG reboot? I'm for that as well, put Steward in it and bam you have peoples attention. The hardest thing about a TNG reboot is its still very fresh to its core fanbase unlike TOS.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 1, 2017 23:59:59 GMT
Continue with the current franchise for another movie or two. No reason why they couldn't branch out with other ships, characters and stories to build a cinematic universe. Star Trek universe is a large universe with a lot of potential for different types of stories and themes.
|
|
|
Post by jaystarstar on Mar 2, 2017 1:11:18 GMT
I don't know if you can really work into a reboot of TNG without running into the fact that TNG was not really the "next generation" to TOS, but two or three generations later, given the 78-year time discrepancy between "Generations" -- 71 years between ST6: TUC and Season 1 of TNG.
(I think Roddenberry deliberately set it late enough that it couldn't reasonably be expected that TOS cast members could or would make regular guest appearances, although of course a super-aged-up McCoy was in the pilot and Scotty and Spock eventually did appear. If TNG had really been set only a decade or so after TOS, there would have been constant clamor for TOS cast members to pop into the episodes and TNG never would have sunk or swum on its own. Plus after ST5 semi-bombed in 1989 it wasn't really thought that TOS cast might be a magic solution for TNG ratings (which ticked upward about the same time).
Picard is supposedly born in 2305 while ST6 supposedly took place in 2293. Picard was 19 years older than any of his Enterprise crewmates (Crusher) while LaForge, Riker, Troi and Worf were all born in the mid-to-late 2330s.
Demora Sulu, the only child of any TOS crew member we see in any canonical work, was in her mid-20s in "Generations," implying a birth around 2270. That would make her mid-60s in the 2230s when most of TNG crew is born, making it feasible one of her grandchildren (and thus Hikaru's great-grandchild) could serve on Picard's crew, probably as young ensigns.
So really "The Next Generation" is more like "The Third-Next Generation," which of course also discounts that "generations" aboard a ship like the Enterprise would probably turn over every 6-10 years as personnel turned over through promotion, retirement, death in action, etc etc etc.
Anyway -- blah blah blah -- it's unlikely even in a distorted/changed timeline due to the "temporal disruption" of the Abrams timeline, that any of TNG crew members, or even their parents, would be born early enough to come into contact with the Pine/Quinto cast.
And we know Picard's father was pretty definitely NOT involved in Starfleet -- at all. Although I suppose, what the hell, you could have Maurice Picard as a youth inspired by the heroic tale of Capt. Kirk decide to enter Starfleet, and off we go, etc etc.
I suppose you could also have Dr. Soong -- or his father -- invent a version of Data several decades earlier than in TNG timeline.
You could certainly DO a reboot of TNG set in the Abrams timeline but trying to tie it into the Pine/Quinto cast would be almost impossible.
|
|
scapolite
New Member
@scapolite
Posts: 30
Likes: 2
|
Post by scapolite on Mar 2, 2017 1:50:14 GMT
I rather like the current franchise esp the casting choice. Could expand the universe without a reboot, as a reboot too soon is always confusing and hard to draw new auidence.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 5, 2017 17:31:38 GMT
Two or three more films and then call it a day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 20:55:00 GMT
I'd scrap all future movies.
Star Trek has never been very comfortable on the big screen. Typically they've sought to turn it into yet another Big Dumb Action Movie to try and get box office success. Sometimes this works okay, often not, but it always feels like "not Star Trek".
I'd also scrap the Star Trek : Discover show which is currently being made. At this point it's such a disaster (if one believes the rumours, which I do) that it's unsalvageable.
Then I'd hire a show runner who knew Star Trek well and was keen to do a faithful show. Which I gather Fuller was, so why they fired him is a giant mystery to me. And I'd have him a bucket of money and have him make the best Trek series he or she could.
|
|
medjay
Sophomore
@medjay
Posts: 668
Likes: 70
|
Post by medjay on Mar 8, 2017 10:46:58 GMT
I'd scrap all future movies. Star Trek has never been very comfortable on the big screen. Typically they've sought to turn it into yet another Big Dumb Action Movie to try and get box office success. Sometimes this works okay, often not, but it always feels like "not Star Trek". I'd also scrap the Star Trek : Discover show which is currently being made. At this point it's such a disaster (if one believes the rumours, which I do) that it's unsalvageable. Then I'd hire a show runner who knew Star Trek well and was keen to do a faithful show. Which I gather Fuller was, so why they fired him is a giant mystery to me. And I'd have him a bucket of money and have him make the best Trek series he or she could. Faithful also means faithful to its politics also?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 12:17:29 GMT
Yes
|
|
ashverses
Sophomore
@ashverses
Posts: 572
Likes: 119
|
Post by ashverses on Mar 8, 2017 12:34:54 GMT
No more movies. Focus on one or two network (non-prequel) television shows. This. I really never liked the movies more than the series. They could give all the characters careful development in a series format. But, this is about money and they will not do that to one of their bigger franchises.
|
|
medjay
Sophomore
@medjay
Posts: 668
Likes: 70
|
Post by medjay on Mar 8, 2017 16:26:42 GMT
No more movies. Focus on one or two network (non-prequel) television shows. This. I really never liked the movies more than the series. They could give all the characters careful development in a series format. But, this is about money and they will not do that to one of their bigger franchises. It also means preachy? Trying to catch The Newsroom audience with a show this costly sounds scary for any moneyman.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 8, 2017 16:54:42 GMT
I'd scrap all future movies.
Star Trek has never been very comfortable on the big screen. Typically they've sought to turn it into yet another Big Dumb Action Movie to try and get box office success. Sometimes this works okay, often not, but it always feels like "not Star Trek". I'd also scrap the Star Trek : Discover show which is currently being made. At this point it's such a disaster ( if one believes the rumours, which I do) that it's unsalvageable. Then I'd hire a show runner who knew Star Trek well and was keen to do a faithful show. Which I gather Fuller was, so why they fired him is a giant mystery to me. And I'd have him a bucket of money and have him make the best Trek series he or she could. Regardless of your feelings, that wouldn't be a very smart decision. The three new movies are the highest grossing ones in the franchise, they're not going to suddenly stop making them because you don't like them.. What are the rumors about the new TV show?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 17:03:03 GMT
Regardless of your feelings, that wouldn't be a very smart decision. The three new movies are the highest grossing ones in the franchise, they're not going to suddenly stop making them because you don't like them.. That may be so. But the question asked was "what would you do..." And that's what I would do. See the video in this thread. And yes, they are just rumours. Maybe they're not true. But I believe them, tentatively.
|
|
|
Post by LaurenceBranagh on Mar 9, 2017 1:12:27 GMT
Let David Lynch direct the next one.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Mar 9, 2017 3:00:01 GMT
I'd use a phaser at kill setting and put it out of its misery.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 9, 2017 5:31:08 GMT
Make a Star Trek movie that brings back the character development, social commentary, and philosophical discussions that these new films have been sorely lacking.
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Mar 9, 2017 6:07:33 GMT
slash the budget. Hire a director that can work with a budget of only about 120m or less.
|
|
medjay
Sophomore
@medjay
Posts: 668
Likes: 70
|
Post by medjay on Mar 9, 2017 7:21:18 GMT
Make a Star Trek movie that brings back the character development, social commentary, and philosophical discussions that these new films have been sorely lacking. Lacking? You don't think there was a Golf of Tonkin. Into Darkness did not shy away from a discussion.
|
|
agentsparky
Sophomore
@agentsparky
Posts: 207
Likes: 84
|
Post by agentsparky on Mar 12, 2017 22:52:49 GMT
I'd scrap all future movies.
Star Trek has never been very comfortable on the big screen. Typically they've sought to turn it into yet another Big Dumb Action Movie to try and get box office success. Sometimes this works okay, often not, but it always feels like "not Star Trek". I'd also scrap the Star Trek : Discover show which is currently being made. At this point it's such a disaster ( if one believes the rumours, which I do) that it's unsalvageable. Then I'd hire a show runner who knew Star Trek well and was keen to do a faithful show. Which I gather Fuller was, so why they fired him is a giant mystery to me. And I'd have him a bucket of money and have him make the best Trek series he or she could. Regardless of your feelings, that wouldn't be a very smart decision. The three new movies are the highest grossing ones in the franchise, they're not going to suddenly stop making them because you don't like them.. kuato, Star Trek Beyond bombed at the box office and although Into Darkness made money, it was mostly despised by longtime Trekkers.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 13, 2017 1:29:47 GMT
Regardless of your feelings, that wouldn't be a very smart decision. The three new movies are the highest grossing ones in the franchise, they're not going to suddenly stop making them because you don't like them.. kuato, Star Trek Beyond bombed at the box office and although Into Darkness made money, it was mostly despised by longtime Trekkers.is the 3rd highest grossing movie in the franchise. Into Darkness has the money and good reviws from RT (higher fan than critic reviews), IMDb, and Metacritic to completely disprove your claim.
|
|
agentsparky
Sophomore
@agentsparky
Posts: 207
Likes: 84
|
Post by agentsparky on Mar 14, 2017 18:08:23 GMT
kuato, Star Trek Beyond bombed at the box office and although Into Darkness made money, it was mostly despised by longtime Trekkers.is the 3rd highest grossing movie in the franchise. Into Darkness has the money and good reviws from RT (higher fan than critic reviews), IMDb, and Metacritic to completely disprove your claim. Actually it's the fourth highest grossing movie in the franchise but not even the fourth profitable movie. www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htmAdjusted for inflation: You stated before that the Abrams' reboots are the highest grossing when in fact only Star Trek 09 is the highest grossing. Also Into Darkness had a way higher production and marketing budget than Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock and First Contact. If I were to were to do additionally research I would probably find that those movies had a higher profit margin. As for fans ( I'm talking longtime Trekkers) reaction to Into Darkness: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ Voted Worst ‘Star Trek’ Film By Fans www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/star-trek-into-darkness-worst-film_n_3755769.htmlStar Trek Into Darkness' voted worst 'Trek' movie by fans www.digitalspy.com/movies/star-trek/news/a506769/star-trek-into-darkness-voted-worst-trek-movie-by-fans/Fans Name 'Star Trek Into Darkness' as the Worst 'Trek' Movie Ever www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/fans-name-star-trek-darkness-604978And here's no talent scumbag hack, Simon Pegg telling longtime Trek fans to go fuck themselves because of the negative reaction to Into Darkness: www.comicbookmovie.com/sci-fi/star_trek/simon-pegg-has-a-message-for-star-trek-into-darkness-haters-fck-a85789Also, you're using Rotten Tomato to indicate the success? That's what Face_Palm/Kylo_Ren uses for his stupid Rebels, Clone Wars and Breaking Bad propaganda. I known you for years on IMDB and you're way better than that. Back to Star Trek Beyond, it had a production budget of $185,000,000 with an additional estimated marketing budget of $160,000,000 = $345,000,000 resulting in a $336,398,312 worldwide by the time it completed it's run in theaters. It's negative 9 million below it's production and marketing costs. Although I hated all the Abrams' Trek movies, there's no denying that only Trek 09 was a huge success out of the three with Beyond losing money.
|
|