Fandango - Star Trek: Beyond Movie Tickets

Iranian Actress Shohreh Aghdashloo Joins Star Trek Beyond as Film Goes Back for Reshoots

shohreh

Deadline is reporting today that Oscar nominated and Emmy winning Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo has joined Star Trek Beyond in the role of the High Command of the Federation. With the announcement also comes official word that Beyond will be undergoing reshoots next week, although the film is still on track for a July 22 release.

Aghdashloo, known for her roles in 24 and her recent work on SyFy’s The Expanse, is the first Iranian actress to win an Emmy, which she won for Outstanding Supporting Actress for her role in House of Saddam.

Her performance on the first season of The Expanse, which is currently scheduled to start shooting its second season next month in Toronto, has been anything but subdued. Her character, Chrisjen Avasarala, is the United Nations Assistant Undersecretary of Executive Administration and proves herself a powerful, and sometimes downright scary, adversary for her enemies. Will her role as a member of the Federation’s High Command draw inspiration from Avasarala? If so, be ready for Aghdashloo to deliver up some intense on-screen moments.

Given that she is just being added to the cast for what is being portrayed as minimal reshoots, it is not clear how prominent her role will be in Beyond. Nevertheless, having a strong Iranian women in a position of power within The Federation (perhaps the President of the Federation or some ranking member of “High Command”) will be a winning move for Star Trek, which has often put men in those positions.

shohreh-expanse
Shohreh Aghdashloo has delivered a powerful performance as Chrisjen Avasarala in SyFy’s The Expanse

Reshoots for Beyond: What does it mean for the film?
Before you start to worry that Beyond is on the chopping block or that its release may be delayed, it’s important to remember that reshoots are often a normal part of the filmmaking process. As TrekCore points out, The Wrath of Khan, Generations, and Insurrection all underwent reshoots before their theatrical release. That famous shot of Spock’s casket sitting on the surface of the Genesis planet? That wasn’t in the original script and was only added after negative viewer reaction during test screenings.

So far, there is no reason to assume that Beyond will be delayed. That said, it is unusual for a film to add a new character this late in the game, particularly one that seems to be relatively important to the plot given the caliber of the actress chosen for the role.

While the film is undergoing some last minute changes, we will all have to keep waiting on baited breath for the next trailer. Or poster. Or comic book. Or literally any official promotion of this movie.

Sort by:   newest | oldest
Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 6:17 pm

Quite often, an actor in a scene or a few scenes just doesn’t work and they recast after the film is in the can. It could just be that the actor they originally hired to play the part just didn’t screen well. They just recast and reshot. I am not worried at all.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 4:19 pm

And it’s entirely possible, that given the recent Academy Awards outcry about the problems with multicuturalism on Hollywood, that the recent cut of the movie just looked “too white”, and so they are adding in a scene that shows an important Federation official who is not a while male?

Ahmed
March 14, 2016 9:53 am

@Prodigal Son,

STB is “too white”?

They have a black Englishman (Elba), an Algerian-French woman (Boutella) & an Indonesian actor Taslim. And the movie is directed by an Asian (Lin) & co-written by another Asian (Jung).

Prodigal Son
March 14, 2016 3:03 pm

LOL — yea, OK. That is covered.

Curious Cadet
March 19, 2016 12:00 pm

Heck, reshoots can happen right up to the final print distribution depending on what they are. They could have a secret scene to be shot with William Shatner, not even he knows he’s going to be hired for, that they are planning to drop in the night of the premier.

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 6:33 pm

It is shame they weren’t able to cast a British guy in this part.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 6:42 pm

I see what you did there. ;) lol

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 7:12 pm

;-)

March 12, 2016 8:12 am

John Cleese would have been epic.

Chingatchkook
March 12, 2016 8:17 am

“The Federation of Silly Walks”, haha

TUP
March 15, 2016 11:21 am

Only if he plays a character that is traditionally non-white. Except then there would be an outcry…unless its a Middle Eastern character who is “bad”, then its ok.

Bob
March 11, 2016 6:57 pm

Comparing these reshoots to what they did with TWOK – apples and oranges. That scene was tacked on to calm down fans upset over the death of Spock.

And ‘Insurrection’ and ‘Generations’ were both awful movies. So we shouldn’t worry about ‘Beyond’ because those terrible films had reshoots? Not seeing the logic here.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 7:00 pm

Reshoots happen ALL the time in movies. Sometime major reshoots. And in other good movies too… not just Trek movies. Stop worrying.

torgo1964
March 12, 2016 12:04 am

Back to the Future is a prime example of a major reshoot when they recast Eric Stoltz.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 2:00 am

Yes and BTTF was over 30 years ago. When people say its ‘common’ EVERYONE understand reshoots are common but no its not common when new actors are brought in for these reshoots. I mean if you have can recite a thousand films and you can think of only 3-4 in those thousand that has done it then no its not ‘common’ lol. Its the complete opposite of common. People throw out 1-2 examples of an industry that makes 300+ films a year and say, “See, this film did it back in 1993 so relax’.

Yeah that doesn’t exactly convince anyone this par for the course and is just a routine matter. Thats all people are saying.

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 7:12 pm

Mad Max Fury Road

Jaws

Enough said….

Tiger
March 11, 2016 8:35 pm

Agreed, its not the same thing. Yes reshoots are common. Adding new actors with reshoots AREN’T. This sounds like a completely new character.

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 8:55 pm

“So take the news that X-Men: Apocalypse is currently undergoing reshoots in stride. Focus on who is returning for these X-Men reshoots: Hugh Jackman. We knew that Wolverine would play some kind of role in the new movie, but the fact that he’s being called in for reshoots is a potentially intriguing morsel of information.”

WHOOPS !!! :-)) LOL

Tiger
March 11, 2016 10:15 pm

Its been rumored since 2014 before DOFP Jackman was going to be included in Apocalpse.

http://geekshizzle.com/2014/05/11/x-men-apocalypse-wolverine-3-filming-back-back/

Apples and oranges. Its not like someone decided out of the blue maybe they should have Wolverine since he’s ben in literally every X-Men movie to date. The guy was always suppose to be in the film. That was ALWAYS part of the plan.

You seriously think this was the same deal?

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 10:30 pm

Easy Tiger…. The part in BEYOND is NOT a major role and NOT a lead role. Just a part to tie parts of the story together. Or recasting an actor that did not “fit” right (much like Eric Stoltz did not “fit” right in BTTF). Geez – you guys stress about every… little… detail. Chill out and wait until the movie comes out before you judge it. Man, Trek fans have got to be the worst!

Tiger
March 11, 2016 11:00 pm

People are discussing their concerns man. You are man then welcome to disagree but stop telling us how we should feel. GOt it?

And yes I get it, its not a major role the only point thats being said is people are worried about the script in general. Yeah maybe its nothing but the fact is the film has had a turbulent time to get here and the trailer SUCKED so yeah I think people concerns are valid. If you disagree fine, but don’t pretend like the production has been rosy and the trailer was loved because neither are true and that reason alone have people worried.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 2:52 pm

I agree with Tiger. There certainly is room for concern here. But Paramount Studios is also falling apart right now, so this could end up being a great movie that they are not marketing properly. None of us really know? I am shocked their wasn’t a new trailer in front of Cliverfield 2.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 10:25 pm

Thank you! All people are saying. Paramount is already in a tail spin. Unfortunately for them they can’t make enough Transformer and Mission Impossible movies to get them out of their mess but they are already dropping the ball with Beyond and its marketing. Its hard to believe its the 50th anniversary and they have done little to tie that in. Hopefully they will have another (and better) trailer out by April the latest but who knows?

Alec
March 13, 2016 3:04 am

I agree with you. I see problems with this film from the first trailer. I for one, can’t believe they have an unrecognizable Idris Alba as the main villian. A star of his caliber shouldnt be hidden under all that makeup/ prosthetics.i also don’t like the fact that they are going a guardian of the galaxy route with this. But we will see if wll our fears have been justified come july.

Marja
March 13, 2016 12:31 pm

Elba has a most wonderful voice, but I agree, Ahmed. Seems they could have designed different makeup to make him look alien without hiding his expressions.

Dandru
March 11, 2016 11:19 pm

I work in the industry and can attest to the fact that it’s actually quite common. This announcement is a complete non-issue.

Alec
March 13, 2016 1:58 am

I agree. Something isn’t right with this one here. Trek is only 4 months away. They are going to be burning the midnight oil on this one.

Mike Krukow
March 12, 2016 5:42 am

Speak for yourself, if you think Generations was awful film. Again…. What do YOU want in a star trek movie that will make you all stop bitching and complaining

Bob
March 12, 2016 9:24 am

You’re right, awful is too kind. TWOK… that’s a good film. But I’d like someone to understand it’s not good just because ‘ooh, there’s a big evil bad guy’.

explor
March 12, 2016 12:38 pm

Generations was AWFUL, I’m speaking for the whole planet.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 2:53 pm

Generations sucked.

Alec
March 13, 2016 3:07 am

The beginning with Kirk was great, but i am still flabbergasted William Shatner went with his death scene. Falling off a collapsed bridge. Just damned awful.

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 5:43 am

Kirk didn’t fall off the bridge. He fell with it, didn’t he? And whats wrong with that anyway? How would you have killed him off?

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 2:07 pm

Do I really have to spell out something so obvious? Come on?

I didn’t go to film school, but I can craft a scene where Kirk sacrifices himself to take a phaser blast meant for Picard, and while falling, he shoots down Soran dead, giving Picard just enough time to shut the device down. Then after that, we get an emotional scene with Picard walking back and having final words with a dying Kirk.

Like DUH. See how easy this is?

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 2:41 pm

What’s obvious is if he did jump in front of a phaser blast to save Picard… that happens in like every other movie. In Generations he sacrificed himself by going out on a rickety bridge – risking his life – to stop the missing. Still an honorable ending and we still get an emotional scene with his dying words. P doesn’t even know him- so why would he break down and cry about it?

Disinvited
March 13, 2016 3:20 pm

“P doesn’t even know him- so why would he break down and cry about it?” — CaptainSheridan

But he knows the legend, and it’s hard to watch one’s heroes die no matter how unrealistically goosed their exploits may have been.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 3:40 pm

You like the bridged death? Really? Seriously? :-))

Sorry, there is no hope is discussing with you this topic then. That was the lamest way for Kirk to go our that one ever could have imagined, short of being accidentally run over by a Shuttlecraft.

BTW, here did my scene say Picard was crying…I never said that? I said “an emotional scene.” Kirk’s a legend and a former E captain, so Picard would be moved by his death…but I never said he would be crying?

Again, I came up with, in five minutes time, and not being a professional writer, a much better “hero death scene for Kirk than that awful bridge thing.

CaptainSheridan
March 14, 2016 5:32 am

Not everyone dies in a blaze of glory! Who said Kirk was Picard’s hero? He never talked about him once. Could there have been a better way to go out for Kirk? Yes, but not any cliched throw himself in front of a phaser. What we got was something unexpected. I still say the original idea of him leaving Soran for dead in a cocky way and then getting shot in the back would have been more fitting into his character.

Disinvited
March 14, 2016 3:05 pm

CaptainSheridan,

While I admit Kirk dove in front of a potential phaser shot in the movie prior, it didn’t connect. He dodged it. Feel free to explain to me how the much more used in the movies in general, and the actually GENERATIONS used dodging a bullet cliches with Kirk and Picard is superior to his taking a bullet.

And I’m sorry that you are so jaded by sacrifice, but, for me, it is difficult to imagine how a character so known throughout his series for his incredible luck could die in a manner so devoid of it right down to his not even being alone.

The script has lines establishing Kirk has being an historic figure, but I don’t think Berman ever understood the character at all and should have heeded those words in his own script to read history.

CaptainSheridan
March 14, 2016 4:21 pm

Luck caught up with Kirk? His luck ran out? I’m not saying there was not a better way to off him, I’m just saying that wasn’t the worst way to go- I mean he still died saving people he didn’t know, still sacrificed himself just as much as if had “jumped in front of a phaser” so save someone. It wasn’t like he was going for a stroll over a bridge and it collapsed.

Disinvited
March 14, 2016 11:40 pm

” It wasn’t like he was going for a stroll over a bridge and it collapsed.” — CaptainSheridan

Actually, for me, that’s exactly what it was like when taking into consideration that the production was replacing Kirk’s getting shot in the back with a stroll. And with all the possible options he could have chosen to acquire that gizmo and catch it, he chose possibly losing it in a collapsing scaffolding stroll?

I mean, I thought ARENA and later adventures established Kirk was an experienced freehand rock climber?

Prodigal Son
March 14, 2016 5:35 pm

That’s just silly? You are joking, right?

Alec
March 13, 2016 10:28 pm

Yes….you are right….he did fell with it…but personally, i always saw kirk going out in a blaze of glory. Sitting in the captain’s chair. I saw something more like what George kirk did in the rebooted alternate universe. He manually piloted the USs Kelvin into Nero’s ship. I would bave liked to sèe something like that done with kirk. And Generations have so much wrong with it. I mean, the Nexus. Picard could’ve gone to any time and place, and yet he decides to go back to the cliff to confront soran ? Oh please! I for one, think kirk could be resurrected, since Guinin said she can’t return with Picard because she is already “there”. The way i take that is the Nexus also makes a copy of the person, and if that is the case, wouldn’t they be another Soran there as well. The movie have so many plot holes it ain’t even funny. I just wish the great leonard Nimoy and Shatner had one more adventure together.

Prodigal Son
March 14, 2016 5:36 pm

He’d Kirk, of course he doesn’t die in a gloried Home Depot melee. LOL

Disinvited
March 15, 2016 12:01 am

Prodigal Son,

“He’d Kirk, of course he doesn’t die in a gloried Home Depot melee.” — Prodigal Son

Indeed, reminded of one of my favorite silent film gags featuring extensive collapsing scaffolding. And that actor did his own stunts and walked away without a scratch as did his character.

Disinvited
March 13, 2016 3:41 pm

Alec,

For me, GENERATIONS gave Kirk two death scenes. And the first was so much better than various permutations of the second including the one they “settled” upon.

Alec
March 13, 2016 10:32 pm

Agreed. The opening of the movie was awesome. After that it went down hill. Generations couldnt even give the next generation crew new uniforms with it being their first big screen outing. And it was a travesty killing off the Klingon sisters who was some of my favorite characters.

Adam Bomb 1701
March 19, 2016 8:32 pm

There were new uniforms made for “Generations”. They were shelved at the last minute, as the producers didn’t want to introduce too many new elements. Some action figures went out with the new uniforms. I had one of Data; I wonder where it is now.

Jim
March 14, 2016 7:28 pm

Generations was horrible after the first 15 minutes. Not at all the way fans wanted to see Picard and Kirk together on screen. Those Generation reshoots should of been all about not killing Kirk because ithat just wasn’t working. Just think if batman v superman turned out to be just superman watching batman make breakfast and chop some wood and die on a failing bridge.

Keachick
March 14, 2016 12:35 pm

No, you are not speaking for the whole planet. I find Generations more enjoyable than TUC. IMO, there is a lot to like about Generations and that includes it being more fun in parts.

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 5:44 am

I’ll speak for myself when I say, I liked Generations. Anyone else? Anyone?

Mike Krukow
March 13, 2016 7:46 am

I enjoyed it

March 13, 2016 1:39 pm

Sorry, man, Generations remains firmly locked at the bottom of my Trek list. Of course, my worst day watching Generations is still better then my best day working.

Alec
March 13, 2016 10:34 pm

The opening of the movie…the USS Enterprise destruction. Everything else…no. Especially Kirk’s crappy death.

Marvin the Martian
March 13, 2016 11:20 pm

They did reshoots for “First Contact” as well. I was at the test screening, and the scenes they added were ones that both I and my friend suggested. So, there must have been several more of us that felt the same way. The final result was really good, so I wouldn’t necessarily assume this is a negative thing.

Ahmed
March 11, 2016 7:05 pm

I don’t see problem with the reshoots as long as the movie will be released on time, and not delay the 2017 series. The lack of marketing campaign on the other hand is more worrisome.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 7:10 pm

Still too early for a full on marketing campaign. Give it a couple of months. It is only the beginning of March.

Ahmed
March 11, 2016 7:32 pm

Give it a couple of months? The movie is coming out in July, just four months from now, not in December.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 8:13 pm

And? Batman v. Superman only really started their marketing campaign in January. Usual marketing campaign for a movie these days is 3-2 months before opening. This is nothing new. So many movies are being released every week. A marketing campaign launched too early would lose steam in an over saturated market. I work in marketing, I know what I am talking about. Stop stressing.

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 8:23 pm

Hmm. I recall seeing Bat v Supes stuff starting like a year ago, dude. And the first teaser trailer was like July of last year.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 8:41 pm

Like I said, they only REALLY started their marketing campaign full tilt at the end of January.

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 9:20 pm

Nope, sorry, that’s simply not the case. They started their marketing campaign with a high profile event at Comicon last year.

Denny C
March 11, 2016 8:51 pm

It started long before January with the release of various images and teasers since this past summer. BEYOND released a teaser and that’s pretty much it. The Omaze fundraiser has done more to promote this film than anything else to date.

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 9:22 pm

You are correct Denny C. I’ve been following the Bat v Supes information since last summer…all kinds of photos over the months, interviews, etc. etc. It’s been consistent since Comicon.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 9:55 pm

That’s ok guys… that wasn’t the marketing campaign, but if you want to think so.. fine, Like I said, the campaign fully started in January.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 5:39 pm

OK, we will pretend that all the activities, clips, interviews teasers, etc, from Comicon to January on BvS, were “accidental releases” of material from Warner’s marketing department.

Sigh! (whatever hap penned to the good ole days, where people would just say, “you know what, I was wrong”?

Jack
March 12, 2016 7:35 pm

He’s not wrong. Yes, there’s been BvS stuff before. But the actual campaign has just gotten started. I’d argue that BvS actually overdid their early marketing by releasing too much during filming.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 9:25 pm

You just contradicted yourself. You are right, they overdid the early marketing — which started last July with Comicon.

Exactly!

Joe Canada
March 13, 2016 10:06 am

In that case, you can say all the leaked footage (including Justin Lin’s tweet) the Omaza campaign, all released pictures, etc to be a part of BEYOND’s marketing campaign too.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 3:58 pm

Sigh. You are comparing a couple items to an organized implementation of a marketing strategy employing of dozens of releases of info, viral marketing, additional footage, interviews, Comicon events, etc. B v S has had a well organized and sustained marketing campaign since July of last year….fact! By comparison,we get a few nuggets nuggets from Paramount, then huge swaths of time pass by — suggesting that their is not much of a marketing strategy, or even a will to market this film, until Spring of this year, the way things are going now.

You are just wrong here and are grasping at straws in some ill-conceived attempt to save face. Just admit it — where’s the beef? You are wrong. Just say it now:

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

Mike Krukow
March 12, 2016 5:43 am

Relax!

Jack
March 12, 2016 7:32 pm

Exactly. And there was this same panicking here before Into Darkness.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 9:57 pm

Nope — Into darkness had two trailers and a Superbowl commercial within 4 months of the movie release.

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 7:19 pm

I just came up with who I want to be the lead for the new Trek series….Keifer Sutherland as Captain!

Ahmed
March 11, 2016 7:30 pm

Can’t be, Sutherland is the lead of the upcoming ABC conspiracy series ‘Designated Survivor’, the plot is very similar to the end of Tom Clancy’s ‘Debt of Honor’!

Prodigal Son
March 11, 2016 8:23 pm

Bummer….but yet, this show sounds interesting. Thanks

March 11, 2016 9:33 pm

Charlie Sheen is available….

Marja
March 13, 2016 12:34 pm

For some reason I’ve never warmed to Kiefer the way I did to his dad. And for some reason I don’t think he’s even as good an actor as Donald Sutherland.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 4:14 pm

Agreed. He’s like Coster…not a great well-rounded action but can be really good in certain quite and intense roles…24 and Dances With Wolves, respectively.

MikeyMCP
March 11, 2016 7:31 pm

I bet they’re going to announce the release date has been pushed back.

The marketing and promotion of Star Trek: All Access vs Star Trek Beyond is like night and day. I have a lot of respect for CBS and how they genuinely seem to appreciate Star Trek fans.

This is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, but you wouldn’t know it!! Ghostbusters, Captain America and Independence Day, all summer releases, each have exciting marketing campaigns that are in full gear. All we’ve had from Paramount is a dumbed down, wanna be Star Wars trailer that even Simon Pegg criticised.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 8:15 pm

Read the article above. The release date isn’t going to change. What is up with all you nervous nellies? Wow. Everyone is so negative all the time.

Tiger
March 11, 2016 8:32 pm

Uh yeah but you DO realize they originally set a date for July 8th and ended up pushing that back. They are saying that now but its to say it can’t happen either. The fact is they set a date before and moved it so its not to say they cant do it again if they are in trouble.

And everyone is skeptical for a reason. I mean look at the crazy history for this film. Its been a mess for the last year now so you can’t blame people for thinking the worst. Hopefully it will turn out good but not holding my breath at the moment.

HubcapDave
March 11, 2016 11:54 pm

Star Trek: All Access has been marketed? Really? How does one market something that has not been made yet?

Disinvited
March 12, 2016 8:10 am

HubcapDave,

One example:

In 1979, the movie studios had a practice in place referred to as “the blind bid” where the theaters would bid on the right to exhibit a to-be-produced film in its opening weeks was auctioned off to the theaters based solely on the brand name and a guarantee that a film would be completed and ready to exhibit by the release date.

Before one frame of film for STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE had been shot Paramount pocketed at least $35 million from that movie’s blind bid.

Example two:

Les Moonves has already said international sales of STAR TREK ALL ACCESS has covered 60% of the show’s cost.

Tiger
March 11, 2016 8:14 pm

Uh I’m sorry but this is NOT good. No it may not mean the film is in trouble but if you’re casting actors after the fact then no thats not a great sign either. I’m sorry but this film just sounds like a mess so far. Our ONE piece of marketing was the god awful trailer so I’m not really convinced this is all just par the course.

We have to remember this film was RUSHED to production. Orci had a script and was ready to direct and both got the boot. And then Simon Pegg was brought in last minute to write a script with Doug Jung in 3 months what is normally given 6-12 months for a film. So people could be right and this could just be a normal thing but I dont think anyone at this point would be shocked if they heard the film was a mess and having complications. I’m already setting expectations super low based on the trailer but it could end up being pretty bad. Hopefully it isnt and maybe the ‘reshoots’ can make a better film but this isn’t a WOK situation, sounds more like a Generations one and no thats not a good thing.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 8:46 pm

Oh, I see… you work in the movie industry and you know all about this, right? Dude, they have recast parts are reshot movies all the time. Back to the Future had already started filming and principal photography was halfway done when they recast Marty McFly. Eric Stoltz was the original actor and they actually shot with him for 5 weeks. The recast and reshot… I think that movie turned out pretty good. No?

Tiger
March 11, 2016 9:59 pm

Stop sounding like a smart aleck. BTTF didn’t start with the director getting fired and a script abandoned. This film has been in trouble from the beginning and people are concerned. And yeah the trailer didn’t exactly make many people feel relieved.

Dude this isn’t JUST about reshooting this film has had many delays already. The fact there is still another one raises alarm bells. You’re not worried, good for you, I am for reasons stated. No one is getting on your case about it, get off of mine.

kmart
March 12, 2016 5:06 am

you don’t know what you’re talking about. SERIOUSLY. I’ve written professionally about visual effects and cinematography for over a quarter-century now, and you are SO off the mark with respect to time for VFX that it makes me wonder what you do read. Quantum of Solace had something like twice as many VFX as any previous Bond movie but only had 90 days of postproduction – and that is straight from the vfx supe’s mouth.

for your STAR WARS example, ILM was begun in summer 1975. It took them a year just to develop the technology to do the shots, and then double shifts and mad rushes to get things done in time for 1977.That’s all regardless of when the film started shooting.

I think maybe people need to go back and actually read up on what they’re talking about instead of relying on sound bytes from ‘making of’ dvd supplements.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 6:12 am
Uh yeah man, I KNOW all of that about ANH. I was talking about examples from filming to post production. Pre production vary wildly because studios give them lots of time to come up with the script. Yeah of course Lucas took longer to set up Star Wars in pre-production becuase it was brand new effect s for its time. the point I’M making is that the process hasn’t been cut any shorter and in fact if you look at nearly every heavy films today with loads of CGI the process takes as long OR longer. I mean my god this isn’t rocket science. Why do you think films get delayed over and over again today? Because while principle photography is still the same its really all the CGI work that takes a long time with these films. I went and gave SPECIFIC examples of heavy FX films in the 70s and 80s compared to today. And I even used the same franchise to be fair to compare and nearly every case today’s films takes longer and certainly cost a lot more. Thats why when you see trailers even if they arent fall apart from the film launch date the FX can still look bad because they are still working on it, some until the very last minute. Congrats you found one example where the FX didn’t take that long while overlooking the hundreds of films that takes 6-12 months of post production. But I’m talking to someone who couldnt… Read more »
kmart
March 12, 2016 4:08 pm

Show me a Bond film that has ever had more than 100 or 120 days of post. It isn’t possible, and that’s whether the budget was 7 figures or 9. Go back up the thread and understand how 12 mil goes to 100 in this time over 35 years in the film biz, and that is lowballing it IMO.

There are people in this thread who know what they are talking about (that’s in addition to me.) You seem to be jumping down their throats as well. Do insecure much?

Tiger
March 12, 2016 10:21 pm

Only we’re not discussing a Bond film lol. We’re talking about a space opera here and those are in longer productions for a reason. And will you stop with the silly math man, I’m not buying it. Move on already.

As for me ‘attacking’ others, you got it backwards, I simply put out an opinion first and OTHERS jumped down my throat for it. I have even said I don’t care about their opinion I’m only expressing mine. Yeah people are worried about the film for many reasons, not much of a shock people would react negatively about it at this point. Hopefully the film will prove us all wrong but I’m not going to hold my breath either.

kmart
March 13, 2016 5:21 am

Get back to me aftter YOU have covered four straight Trek movies for Cinefes – then I might consider your opinions to be as valid as my own when it comes to vfx and costs of production on space operas. You’ll be much more entitled to yoru opinion when it becomes an informed one.

Tiger
March 15, 2016 2:14 pm

Seriously no one cares man. If you are going to pull that card out then you shouldn’t even be here since according to you NONE of our opinions are valid here unless we all worked for Cinefes too I guess which I don’t even know what that is. You have proven your silly point based on any real facts. Let it go already. You can believe what you want but I certainly don’t have to.

Disinvited
March 12, 2016 8:24 am

Tiger,

Not to mention, the producers wanted Michael J. Fox from the beginning and only shot with Stoltz because the studio bigwigs were gungho on Stoltz and agreed to cover the costs if Stoltz didn’t workout on screen in the role which he didn’t and the studio, as agreed, covered the costs for the Fox reshoot.

Jack
March 12, 2016 7:50 pm

You’re killing my buzz, Tiger. I’m looking forward to this. We get it – you’re not. Fine. BTW, this site has seen forecasts of critical and box office doom for the previous two movies. They did okay.

If you think beyond is troubled, then you could make the same argument for The Undiscovered Country. There were rejected scripts/ideas (but that also happened on TWOK), budget restrictions after V did badly — and final filming finished two months before release (they had to get it in by the end of that year to celebrate the 25th anniversary).

Lin has previously helmed a billion dollar franchise. I used to make fun of those movies having only seen the first one, but 5 and 6 were darned good. Yeah, they’re sappy and over-sentmental, but they’re watchable as heck. I’m not worried. I may be proven wrong, but that’s fine.

Personally, I wish it were coming out in the winter — I worry (see, I do it too) that summer’s too crowded.

Dandru
March 11, 2016 11:22 pm

Exactly, Joe Canada–and I say that as someone who DOES work in the movie industry. The only people getting worked up about this are those who lack an understanding of what goes on in this town.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 9:01 pm

Rushed? Nick Meyers rewrote the script in 12 days after he was brought in after the first draft was already done. He shot principal photography in 3 months. I think that movie did okay… don’t you?

Tiger
March 11, 2016 9:56 pm

Nick Meyer was working on a $12 million budget.In today’s dollars its about $30 million. This is a $150 million film man with a LOT more moving parts, bigger effects and sets. If Beyound was the same cost of a TV pilot then OK maybe not much to think about. But when its this big and costly the last thing you want to do is rush through it.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 10:07 pm

liked I said… rushed? Dude, it isn’t being rushed. Most of the budget for BEYOND is for the cast, shooting in Dubai and CGI. Back in the day, TWOK had models that needed building, full sets, not CGI on green screen. When you take all that into account… shooting in 3 months on sound stages seems rushed by comparison. Meyer rewrote the script in 12 DAYS.

Tiger
March 11, 2016 10:39 pm
A. This isn’t ‘back in the day’ man its 2016 where films take a lot more time to complete. B. For every WOK that works out you have an entire backlog of film duds that sucked because they rushed movies into production with half done scripts and trying to crank it out in time to reach a premiere date instead of trying to do the film right. TWOK was a $12 million film. They used props and sets from TMP to cut down costs. Reliant was the only prop that was made from scratch. C. Yeah Meyer wrote the script in 12 days but as usual this is one of those crazy Hollywood myths that gets waaaaay too exaggerated. Before he came on board they had written multiple drafts by then for a full year. Meyer took ideas from the stuff OTHER people worked on and made a story around it. You act like he came up with everything from scratch. Not close to true. Khan, Spock’s Death, Saavik and Genesis were already in other drafts he simply combined the them from the other scripts and put in his own story. IIRC he did come up with the idea of Kirk having a son but most of the basic concepts was already there. So stop acting like the entire film was in pre-production, written and shot in 2 months. Yes the production took about 3 months and things were rushed but they worked on the thing a full year before… Read more »
Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 10:59 pm

Actually, Films take LESS time now to complete then they did “back in the day.” With green screen and CGI, it is a lot faster to produce a movie. And all the base lines for the Enterprise are already done from the first movie. Once your base lines are complete, everything else is quick to do. Writing a script for a movie is very quick once the idea is hashed out. (oh, btw, Meyer himself confirmed he looked at ideas from other scripts and rewrote something that did not resemble the initial draft… in 12 days). I never once said in anything that Meyer came up with the idea all by himself… he didn’t even have a writers credit.

By the way, the only model they used from TMP was Enterprise. All props (phasers, tricorder, communicators) were remade from TMP to TWOK. All uniforms were new. The bridge sets were redone (although they did use the main consoles from TMP) The Reliant bridge was a redressed Enterprise bridge, I will give you that.

The hard work these days is in post production and post sound. Ask any film maker today and they will tell you that shooting today is a hell of a lot faster.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 1:35 am

“Actually, Films take LESS time now to complete then they did “back in the day.” With green screen and CGI, it is a lot faster to produce a movie.”

LOL you’re just as clueless as the other guy I responded to about this. See my post above yours for a response. CGI takes a loooooong time. Ask yourself why it took Avatar 5 YEARS to make even if 95% of that film was done with CGI and green screen? Why do you think Avatar 2 keeps getting delayed? George Lucas filmed and edited A New Hope in a little over a year and yet for SOME reason with all that ‘faster’ technology known as CGI took him twice as long to complete The Phantom Menace. Funny both ANH and TPM had about 3 months of principle photography and yet it only took ANH 10 months in post production (considered a long time at the time and thats with delays, he originally only had 6 months before it was pushed back) while TPM post production took another 20 months.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Dandru
March 11, 2016 11:23 pm

Films are completed in MUCH less time than they used to be. This proves what I already suspected: you’re not very knowledgeable about how films are made. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 1:12 am
LOL are kidding me???? Post production work goes MUCH longer today than in the 70s and 80s man. Quick example, Star Wars ANH started shooting in March of 76 and premiered in May of 77. TFA, the last film Star Wars film (or what I call ANH: The Next generation) started filming May of 2014 and premiered Dec. 2015. And yes Abrams said the film was being worked on until 3 weeks before the premiere which means it was finished November of 2015. ;) TWOK started filming in August of 81 for a release of June 1982. Meanwhile STID started filming January of 2012 and the picture wasn’t locked until April of 2013. Superman the movie AND Superman 2 started filming in March of 77 and completed October of 1978. MoS meanwhile started April 2011 but the film wasn’t completed until November of 2012. It took a full year just for the effects work. So yes it took the same time to complete MoS as it did to complete Superman’s 1 AND most of 2 in the same space. ;) Batman ’89 was shot in October of 1988 and was released in June of 89. Meanwhile TDKR started in May 2011 and wasn’t completed until June 2012. Alien was filmed in July 1978 and finished in April 1979. Meanwhile Prometheus was made in March 2011 and completed in April 2012. Terminator started filming in October of 1983 and premiered in October of 1984. Cut to 31 years later and Terminator… Read more »
Ahmed
March 12, 2016 8:31 am

@Joe Canada,
“liked I said… rushed? Dude, it isn’t being rushed.”

Are you working for Bad Robot? The movie was supposed to start production in October 2014, it was delayed to July 2015. Simon Pegg, you know the writer of the movie, talked in various interviews about the time pressure.

So don’t lecture us about the facts.

kmart
March 12, 2016 4:59 am

You’re CRAZY if you think 12mil in 82 is 30 mil today – more like 100 mil in terms of movie budgets.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 5:29 am

LOL Kmart, you’re on the internet man, USE IT!

Every inflation calculator I used comes to same result for $12 million in today’s dollars: $29,461,056.99

Yeah, you’re right, I am wrong. I actually overestimated by it $539,000. Silly me. ;) No way it would $100 million lol.

Some are a bit higher and puts it slightly over $30 million but yes basically that..

kmart
March 12, 2016 6:23 am

we’re talking MOVIES here, not regular inflation. How else do you get MUMMY in 1999 costing 60 mil, and 20 of that is just VFX! Try using the net to calculate average cost of a movie in 75 or 80, vs what it is now. Then see how your inflation calculator works by comparison. As far as that goes, you can’t apply this to ticket sales either, since those prices don’t rise with a straight rate.

Do you even see how few studio movies there are that come in under 50? Yet in 82 ther were still lots of pics being made for much less (hell, TERMINATOR 1 was 6 mil in 84.)
Go do your homework, fool. And start by reading the other posts I and some other folk who know what they speak of are saying. (christ, I dunno why I even bother … )

Tiger
March 12, 2016 11:37 am

LOL man what are you saying? If a film cost $12 million in 1982 how does that suddenly sky rocket to $100 million today??? TWOK was a CHEAP movie even in 1982 standards. It was designed on a TV budget and all the people who worked on mostly came from TV and knew how to shoot stuff fast and cheap. Terminator was also a low budget movie. Cameron shot the thing as cheaply as he could.Mummy was a big splashy studio film. What are you talking about? Me do my homework, lol man you’re the one who can’t do simple math. Yeah please don’t bother with responses like that. ;)

kmart
March 12, 2016 4:05 pm

Look at budgets for films. Look at size of said films. Look with better eyes than you seem to have currently operating. Pay attention to what you are seeing, and then maybe you’ll understand some simple facts.

I bet you’re one of those people who believe Berman about TUC’s klingon blood color being ratings-related too, right? Yeah, keeping dumbing it down.

BTW, if you actually look at budgets on a line basis, you’ll see the increases in both below-the-line and above-the-line costs and how they have risen relative to inflation. I think the ‘average’ studio movie was costing 65 mil a couple years back, and that is compared to the average film being about 8 in 1980 (roughly.) If you apply that to TWOK, 8 x 13 (which is what TWOK wound up costing, they ate a whole million in overtime because the studio didn’t make enough stages available) puts it over 100 mil. Now I have to do some real work, so go educate yourself.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 10:07 pm

The film cost $12 million in 1982, it would be around $30 million today. Nothing in your crazy rambling has remotely proven it would cost $100 million lol. I mean seriously, nothing. I have basic facts, you have bizarre guestimates based on nothing but your odd reasoning and not much more. I’ll stick to basic math here, thanks.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 3:53 pm

You are both wrong. I remember the ticket prices in the early 80’s being $3.50 where I live. They are $14 now. So, a factor of 4 is about right — in between both of what you are saying.

explor
March 12, 2016 12:42 pm

Beyond is going to suck major ass-hoop, cinema Trek is finished. Trek is coming home where it belongs, on the TV screen.

Marja
March 13, 2016 12:38 pm

Wow thanks for sharing. I bet you’ll see the movie just so you can prove your hypothesis; and no matter how good the movie turns out to be, will voice your criticism here, ad infinitum.

Dandru
March 11, 2016 11:21 pm

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. This sort of thing happens all the time. All this melodrama is pointless.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 11:22 pm

I agree with you completely, Dandru.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 1:48 am

Really? So studios fire the director/writer a month before production and then replace him with new ones after production was suppose to start a common occurance in Hollywood? You guys aren’t getting it, we’re NOT talking about the reshoots alone, we’re saying the entire production in general has been in a crisis and these reshoots are a system of that. Beyond has had all kinds of production issues. You sound like you’re a mouth piece for Paramount.

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 8:53 am

@Tiger,

“You [Joe Canada] sound like you’re a mouth piece for Paramount.”

Well, that’s what marketing for, right :)

Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 9:28 am

Tiger, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Movies do reshoots all the time – due to many reasons. This is very common place and are in no means a “Bad Omen” for the movie. You are completely negative about everything about this movie right off the start. Why don’t you just wait until the movie comes out and make your judgement then.

Read this:
http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/18663/why-reshoots-aren%E2%80%99t-a-reason-to-hit-the-panic-button

Tiger
March 12, 2016 11:51 am
LOL Joe Canada, do you have like a fifth grade reading level? Seriously. I have said it over and over and over again reshoots are common. I mean I have said it at least three times now. We can’t edit anything so yeah they are all there originally written. I don’t know how many times can I say reshoots are very common. I’ll say it again in case you missed it: Reshoots are very common. Ok? Did you catch it this time since you missed all my other posts? Now the DIFFERENCE is A. As we been saying over and over again if the reshoots was the ONLY issue it would be different—-it isn’t. and some of us believe COULD be part of a plagued production which has been in trouble literally since December of 2014 B. Reshoots RARELY bring in new characters which also could be a sign there is something much bigger at play here. C. The trailer sucked and others are worried they are trying to inject more/better story. Now ALL that said, could it be much ado about nothing? Yeah it could man. My first post here I SAID it may not be a sign the film is in trouble BUT given everything in this film to the original writer/director being fired, delayed production and the script being rushed then yeah its a concern. We wont really know how much it is until we see the thing obviously but to just brush it off and say,… Read more »
Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 3:04 pm

I think you have the mental capacity of a 5th grader… I am trying to tell you that there have been no issues (that we know of) since the new writers and directors took over. pre and post production went well. The shooting finished on schedule. And post is progressing well too. Doing a minor rehoot is all part of the movie game my friend. Perhaps a scene did not flow well once that segment was edited and they needed a bridge to better convey and progress the story.

Where are your concerns??? What make this all doom and gloom for you that you are negative about the whole production? Or are you just a pessimistic and negative person in general, because that would explain a lot.

For me, removing Orci and his team was a positive move. The last 2 movies did not do as well as expected. Major issues with the second movie. The studio wanted a change. Bring in a new Director and new writers to give it fresh look is a good thing. And it have been nothing but positive since then.

I know the trailer did not get the “fan” reaction Trek fans would have liked… but it was cut especially for SW fans as it premiered with that movie. They want to pull in viewers from different markets… and as an advertising marketer myself, that is the exact right thing to do.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 10:01 pm

This is a waste of time man. Yeah you have your concerns we have ours, deal with it. I remember being on these boards when the rumors of Orci getting fired and everyone was saying its just silly rumors, its much ado about nothing, everything is great. A week later we learned differently. You say you’re not a Paramount mouth piece but you’re certainly coming off that way.

If its nothing then yeah no worries then, but people can certainly speculate and a lot has happened since this film went into production to give people suspicion. Its not like this one website is the only one questioning it. Its everywhere and for good reason.

And yeah the trailer sucked so I’m not holding my breath we are going to get a good film but love to be proven wrong but so far it just feels like another generic action film with witty one liners and a villian caked in make up;; and very little else at the moment.

Alec
March 13, 2016 3:25 am

I like you Tiger. And i agree with you. Beyond is going to be a massive bomb for paramount. I guess we’ll have to wait another 10 years before Trek is rebooted on the big screen again.

Tiger
March 13, 2016 7:08 pm

I appreciate that but I never said the film would be bomb, only that its questionable its going to be a big success given everything we know so far. I dont rule that out the film could be really good, but yes many are just concerned what we seen up to this point. I’m not sure how that is exactly a shock at this point. The trailer on Youtube has nearly half of people has people who disliked it as people who liked it. No Trek trailer, including the last two films has never gotten so much hate from a trailer before. Thats a BIG concern people and this film represents the 50th anniversary. Stop kidding yourselves this IS an alarm bell like it or not..

Hopefully we’re proven wrong. If not, hopefully the show will bring back the spirit of the series which I’m much more excited for anyway.

Alec
March 13, 2016 10:45 pm

Ok…it may not bomb badly, but it wont make as much as Into Darkness. And into darkness did not perform the way the studios wanted. One of the biggest and issues was the near 5 year wait between the first film and 2nd. Paramount have always treated Trek like the bastard child. The way Trek have been treated, you wouldn’t think its the 50th anniversary this year. Hell, if i was filthy rich,I would front $100 million and give Trek an awesome film that brought together every single incarnation from television.

Joe Canada
March 13, 2016 9:54 am

If you are SO sure that this means the movie is going to be a flop and it is plagued with problems (which there is no sign of)… then why are you even here on these boards? You have already judged the whole movie based on a change of writers and Directors before a single piece of footage was shot, a trailer that was released and cut to run in front of a Star Wars movie and a minor reshoot. You have given up on the movie without seeing it. You have judged the entire production on the basis of no reports of trouble. So I guess we won’t hear from you again.

Tiger
March 13, 2016 5:03 pm
Again you keep proving why its a waste of time to talk to you because your reading comprehension is awful. Where did I say I was SURE the movie was going to flop??? Read my post again, I’m saying people have alarm for concern, which means its POSSIBLE it could be bad,but I never stated it as a foregone conclusion either. For the record I’m happy Simon Pegg wrote the script because I believe he can make a good film. The only issue I have is that he wasn’t given the proper time to really create it and yes that gives me concerns. Hell read Pegg’s own words he basically says JUST that in his interviews, that he was under pressure to get something out in little time. That he and Doug Jung wrote the thing in seperate places because he couldnt always be in LA with his other commitments and he says he doesnt normally write like that with his other partners. That the studio had certain elements in mind to put in the he wasn’t fond of but obviously had to make work. And thats fine, every screenwriter has to deal with that but clearly Paramount’s demands are stronger to the point the guy who wrote the last two films and came up with this entire premise for the reboots could no longer satisfy them. Pegg has all but said he wrote the film rushed and under pressure and yes that should alarm anyone!!!!! Now does that automatically… Read more »
Tiger
March 13, 2016 6:53 pm
This is Pegg’s own words: “On set, sometimes, there’s room for improvisation, especially for someone like Scotty who’s Scottish, but never anything more than little dialogue tweaks, here and there. Now it’s like, “Okay, now you’ve got to write the dialogue.” It’s scary! Also, the timeframe we’re working in is extremely tight. It means we’re having to come up with the goods. We can’t be lazy about it. We can’t procrastinate. We have to come up with the stuff because the production is hammering on the door saying, “When can we build this? What are we gonna we build? Who is in it?” I don’t know! Let’s right it and we’ll find out. It’s an interesting process.” Now none of what he said means the film is a disaster, I’m only pointing out that Pegg himself acknowledge they are working under a crazy clock thanks to the studio not giving them adequate time notmally others are given to write a screenplay. Orci and Kurtzman had 10 months to write both the 09 film and STID IIRC. Pegg and Jung had 3-4 months before production began. And he’s trying to put his best face forward here but still admits they were under immense pressure to deliver. I dont care how you try and spin it thats just not ideal. He could have produced a great story but I’ll say it again: The trailer did NOT leave me with the best impression that he did while ALSO recognizing its just a 90… Read more »
Marja
March 14, 2016 2:01 pm

Sounds like some people will be dancing in the streets should the film do poorly.

Which I don’t think it will :-)

Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 9:32 am

Obviously the crap that Bad Robot and the writing team put out with Into Darkness and the draft they put forth was not good in the eyes of Paramount. This is not new either. Directors have been fired before a movie starts. Writers are fired. Actors are recast. THIS is the movie business reality.

I’m not a mouth piece for Paramount – It just annoys me when people are going in to everything negative and complaining. You know NOTHING about how things went from the day they started the script to the day they started post production. What makes the whole production in crisis? You said there have been all kinds of production issues… so fill us in, what do you know that no one else does?

Alec
March 13, 2016 10:54 pm

That’s not the point. The movie been plague with issues since they announced it. And Like many others who saw the trailer, it was appalling. I thought I was watching something other than trek with that trailer. And that crappy music/song by the bestie devils….ok…I know its the beastie boys, it still sucked. Oh look at me, I am kirk, and I can soar through the freaking air on a motorcycle. Face palm. If this movie turns out to be good, I’ll be the first on this board to apologize for voicing my negative comments, but Into Darkness left a bad taste in my mouth. Never should have used Khan. Period.

Disinvited
March 12, 2016 6:34 am

Dandru,

Instead of simply making unreasonably broad assertions, why don’t you name the major Actors and/or Actresses hired for the STAR TREK and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS reshoots and put the matter to rest if, indeed, “This sort of thing happens all the time.”?

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 5:50 am

I still don’t get what’s wrong with the trailer…. looks like a fun adventure. Reminds of something, some show I’ve seen from a long time ago…. yeah, there’s some “crazy rock and roll” but who cares? Was everyone up in arms when they did that in First Contact?

S4K
March 15, 2016 9:07 am

$12,000,000.00 in 1982 is $29,461,056.99 in 2016.

Cygnus-X1
March 11, 2016 8:47 pm
Denny C
March 11, 2016 8:47 pm

That was not a re-shoot for the TWOK. It was essentially a pick-up shot to set up a potential sequel. It did not involve additional pages of dialogue or necessitate the return of cast members to shoot new scenes.

Generations? That WAS a re-shoot. Test audiences hated ending, Kirk’s death re-written and re-shot.

Insurrection? Also a re-shoot after it was determined that the ending needed a bit more oomph.

More than likely the re-shoots for Beyond are to tie together some plot elements or, like the end of TWOK, lay the foundation for a sequel.

Cygnus-X1
March 11, 2016 9:09 pm

I think that giving Kirk some dying words works better than the original ending where he just sort of fades away. But, Kirk getting shot directly by Soren in the original works better than the re-shoot where the catwalk crushes him. I can’t imagine what they were thinking when they decided to have Kirk killed by a collapsing catwalk in the re-shoot…

Let’s have Kirk’s final scene be a mano-a-mano fight with the villain!

Oh, that could work! And the villain kills Kirk, yes?

No, Kirk dies because the catwalk he’s on gives way!

Ah.

Disinvited
March 12, 2016 6:50 am

Cygnus-X1,

What really would have worked for me, Berman would never have allowed as he never wanted Kirk to even appear to have the potential to outshine Picard: Kirk miraculously reading Soran’s tensing muscles takes the shot meant for Picard by jumping between them before Soran’s trigger finger actually clamps down on it.

March 12, 2016 8:41 am

Can’t believe I’m saying this, Cyg….considering that an underlying theme for Kirk in the previous movies (to some degree or another) was some level of regret, for the writers to have not really given him the opportunity to come to grips with that was almost criminal. Bringing that arc to a more pointed end would have made for a better movie, and could have given Shatner, Stewart, and McDowell a better opportunity to put their acting chops on display. Instead, we got ‘bridge on the captain’.
Thanks for reminding me why Generations remains at the bottom of my Trek list!

Cygnus-X1
March 12, 2016 2:01 pm
TUP Today 11:05 am Phil Today 8:41 am I agree with both. Kirk’s ad lib was well done and better than nothing. But there really should have been a meaningful part written for him to end the arc of his regret, feelings about death and so forth dealt with in the previous movies. We actually got a more meaningful death scene from Picard in TNG’s Final Mission, though he winds up not actually dying after delivering his dying speech to Wesley. As for the plot holes and logic problems in Generations overall, yeah let’s not even get started on it. Though I will say that Berman et al actually repeated the exact same time-travel logic mistake on the following movie, First Contact. Kirk and Picard choose to go back to stop Soran right before he’s about to execute his plan on Veridian III, instead of going back to when Soran was on the Enterprise-B and simply taking him into custody there (or going back to myriad other times when it would have been easy to prevent Soran executing his plan). Likewise, in First Contact, the Borg fly right up to the Earth, battling the enterprise, to open a time-travel portal and then only choose to go back to the mid-21th Century. They could just as easily have opened the portal far away from Earth, where neither the Enterprise nor anybody else would have known about it and interfered. Then, the Borg could have gone back to a time before humans… Read more »
TUP
March 12, 2016 11:05 am

Agreed. The shooting was better but the goodbye was needed. Shatner was excellent in that death scene including his ad-libbed “Oh my…” as he stares past Picard into “death”.

But you’re also correct the whole thing was stupid. Kirk was a prop to get Picard and TNG over. Just a mess of a film. The psychology was all wrong where you have two heroes fighting one villain. Not to mention Picard losing fair and square and having to go get help from the older Kirk.

And of course the stupidity of choosing to go back to Soren at that moment rather than a million other better options.

Kirk tools around the Nexus for 75 years but Picard figures it out right away? Stupid.

Anyway….

Jack
March 12, 2016 7:55 pm

Did Takei steal that?

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 9:08 am

Picard could resist it better because he was Picard… much more in his character. He wasn’t tempted by the whole family thing as much. Plus- he’s Picard!
I always wondered why they chose to go back to right before Soren launched the missile. And not before the E was destroyed. Obviously they didn’t know the E was destroyed. But even so they could have gone back to when Soren was in 10-forward and take him by surprise. Or could they only go back to a specific time but still somewhere close to the ribbon?

Disinvited
March 13, 2016 3:36 pm

“But even so they could have gone back to when Soren was in 10-forward and take him by surprise. Or could they only go back to a specific time but still somewhere close to the ribbon?” — CaptainSheridan

I think you have come to the realization why some of us have troubles with the second half of the feature. The first half had troubles with awkward dialog not actually written for the characters who would ultimately say them, but still glaringly better than the logic of the last half. Annoying in hinting just how good they could have done it but then squandering it.

And as for exiting somewhere close to the ribbon, are you forgetting how fast that thing was going? It wasn’t anywhere near the planet at the time they exited for the
do-over..

CaptainSheridan
March 14, 2016 5:35 am

And as for exiting somewhere close to the ribbon, are you forgetting how fast that thing was going? It wasn’t anywhere near the planet at the time they exited for the
do-over..
— it was closer though, at least in that system, than it was at any other point they could have travelled to wasn’t it?

Alec
March 13, 2016 3:29 am

Agreed. The catwalk was the most absurd death in all of Trek. Even the red shirts went out in style…in the original series. Soran should have just shot Kirk as originally intended.

kmart
March 12, 2016 4:52 am

TWOK had reshoots well before that punched-up ending, in which the stuff with our gang down in the Eden Cave was reshot and altered. Another reshoot was for the big blowup on bridge when Reliant’s torp hits. As far as that goes, the opening scene in TWOK with the simulator was a reshoot (though that may have happened at the tail-end of production rather than by bringing the cast back), because the first time through they got too ‘real’ and had people flying through the bridge and it was a total failure and had to be junked.

As for regular movies, Marvel considers reshoots with main actors such a normal part of business that a week or two are built into the contracts for players on their films, found that out when I wrote about ANT-MAN.

CmdrR
March 11, 2016 9:47 pm

OK, now Trekkies have no excuse not to check out The Expanse. Seriously, it’s the most Trek-friendly series since Moore’s BSG.

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 8:40 am

Absolutely. ‘The Expanse’ is the best, and only, space based TV show on the air now. The attention to details & world-building are great.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 8:00 pm

OK, I have the episodes on my DVR and was struggling through the first one…I need to get back to it….

Mel
March 12, 2016 9:10 am

I have it looked up on Wikipedia (haven’t seen it myself yet) and am not sure, what The Expanse has to do with Star Trek? It sounds like it is about a dystopian future. Earth suffering under overpopulation and humans in the whole solar system fighting among each other over resources. Is that wrong?

Or do you mean with “Trek-friendly” only that is is a scifi series with some spaceships? I suspect so, because I already don’t see, what BSG has otherwise in common with Star Trek.

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 9:36 am

@Mel,

The Expanse is not a dystopian future. It’s about a future in which humans expanded to most of the Solar System, and how that is affecting relationships between Earth, Mars & the Belt. In that I can see how ‘The Expanse’ is similar to DS9. They both address the political ramifications of war, the evolution of new cultures & languages, the struggle of new political groups to regain independence & so on.

Give it a shot if you can, the first episode is a bit slow but the show gets much better by the second episode onward.

quantum47
March 12, 2016 10:56 am

@Mel

I’d give you vote up, but unfortunately the feature is still disabled. I agree, I wouldn’t call that series Trek-friendly either. By the way, we’d like the voting system to be activated again.

Thorny
March 12, 2016 12:37 pm

I wanted to like The Expanse, but I turned it off after about twenty minutes. Didn’t grab my attention at all.

Cygnus-X1
March 12, 2016 1:35 pm

Thorny Today 12:37 pm

There’s a lot of exposition at the beginning. Give it a few episodes. You’ll get pulled into the storyline.

CrazyCanuck1867
March 11, 2016 10:28 pm

Sorry but wtf is High Command of the Federation? Never heard that title in Trek before. I hope that the’re (writers & producers) not mistakenly mixing up the Federation for Starfleet like they did in the 2009 movie. The Federation and Starfleet are two separate and completely different entities.

Btw when I said that they mixed up the Federation for Starfleet in the 09 film I’m talking about when Pike is describing to Kirk in the bar about what the Federation is. Well he wasn’t describing the Federation at all. He was describing Starfleet.

I know I’m geeking out and being picky. I didn’t write this to piss anyone off and I’m still very looking forward to watch the film.

Joe Canada
March 11, 2016 10:44 pm

Yeah, you are being picky. Sorry. But, yeah… you are. But the High Command is probably part of the Federation’s inner cabinet.

“The President is supported by the Cabinet, a special committee composed of the heads of the executive departments of the Federation government as mentioned in “Extreme Measures”.

How’s that for geeking out? ;)

Meurik
March 12, 2016 2:57 am

We have the Vulcan High Command (ENT), and the Klingon High Command (ENT->VOY). NOWHERE, have they ever mentioned a “Federation High Command” in the canon of Star Trek.

Bill (who was Commander-in-Chief of Starfleet), was never referred as being part of the Federation High Command. Never.

kmart
March 12, 2016 4:56 am

That’s just nomenclature. Are you so ticked in early TOS (pre-Coon) when they call it Space Central instead of Starfleet that you can’t bring yourself to rewatch?

Now something offensive is the ‘enlist in Starfleet’ notion, that is the big stupid there, though I agree with canuck that the Pike/Kirk dialog is nonsensical with the peacekeeping armada business. But the descrips on this of being high command could just be bad PR writing, a la the early reports for TWOK (which I remember from page 3 of the newspaper), indicating MONTALBAN WAS PLAYING AN ANDROID!

so don’t get worked up over high command (I have a feeling this movie will be a lot more watchable than the previous two, but that is setting the bar pretty damn low.)

Jack
March 12, 2016 7:57 pm

It was also odd because it sounded like a line they’d added in post-production (you don’t see him when he says it). If they’re adding it, why not get it right — although, it was there as an explanation to a general audience, so maybe they consciously chose to say the federation and not starfleet (although, that doesn’t really make sense – as they use the word starfleet in that scene).

Marja
March 12, 2016 11:28 pm

I kind of blanched at Pike’s line “the Federation is a humanitarian and peacekeeping armada”. I was thinking, “NO, that’s STARFLEET.” Cripes. Shoulda reshot that :-)

March 12, 2016 12:09 am

Remember there was a rumor at one point that the movie would feature a female Federation president? Perhaps that was true but the actress they shot with just wasn’t working and so they are reshooting just those scenes.

Gary 8.5
March 13, 2016 12:19 pm

That’s my guess.

Visitor1982
March 12, 2016 12:47 am

Re-shoots are common, re-shoots that a add a completely new character, 4 months before the release date, is not every common.

Beyond is in trouble, everyone can smell it.

photon70
March 12, 2016 12:56 am

Justin Lin was working on tweaks to the special effects for FF6, just a few weeks before release because he thought it needed more work.

We all know how much that movie made don’t we.

Visitor1982
March 12, 2016 12:59 am

Tweaks to special effects is completely different to adding a new character.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 1:44 am

Exactly! Beyond may work out fine in the end but people are kidding themselves this was all par the course. The film has been in trouble and behind since Orci got the boot, so its not a shock they are still figuring things out.

Meurik
March 12, 2016 2:55 am

And when Beyond bombs at the box office (which seems increasingly likely), i’ll be right here: LAUGHING, at the people who claim the sky ISN’T falling.

Just once, I’d like to see people actually think things through critically, rather than sheepishly behaving like “everything’s fine” regardless of what goes on.

Bob
March 12, 2016 9:28 am

When Beyond bombs at the box office (which seems increasingly likely) we can say goodbye once and for all to the Abramsverse.

And good riddance.

Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 10:18 am

Sounds like you have already given up on the movie and Trek in general. I guess you might as well hand in your comm badge and membership and stop posting since you have written it off. What more is there for you to say? Continually bash a movie you haven’t seen yet?

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 4:53 pm

That’s what people “who show moronic behavior” do.

photon70
March 12, 2016 2:17 pm

And when it opens to $85m in North America?

Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 10:17 am

“when Beyond bombs”

So that means you aren’t going to go see the movie since it is a bomb already in your eyes. No point in seeing a bomb, right?

Jack
March 12, 2016 8:03 pm

Why? I don’t really understand the glee some people feel at the prospect of Trek failing. The same arguments were made last time. Failure is bad for Trek.

If The Voyage Home had tanked, I suspect TNG would never have happened. And after Nemesis and Enterprise, Trek was dead for years. So, yep, I hope this — and the new show — both are really, really good and do well.

And what’s sheepish about optimistically waiting and seeing? We have no actual information. Sure, the trailer wasn’t good at all — but trailers often aren’t. And the predictiosn of doom here pre-dated the trailer.

Marja
March 12, 2016 11:34 pm

AGREED.

The only thing I’m concerned about is publicity because it was not done very well for STID.

I choose optimism and do not see this as a danger sign. As someone pointed out it could simply be a scene to link elements of the film together.

Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 10:15 am

“The film has been in trouble and behind since Orci got the boot”

How has it been in trouble? What are your sources? Filming went well and on schedule. Post is going fine. They are doing a reshoot – quite normal. So… what is this devastating trouble?

Thorny
March 12, 2016 12:40 pm

“re-shoots that a add a completely new character, 4 months before the release date, is not every common.”

Do we know that’s the case? Do we know that Paramount simply didn’t like the scene as originally filmed and asked it to be reshot with a different actor?

Meurik
March 12, 2016 2:26 am

Reshoot AND adding a brand new character this close to release? Yeah, doesn’t smell good. But I suppose this is what happens when the entire production has been rushed from start to finish, with an incomplete script and an incomplete cast.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 2:46 am

Exactly! I know Paramount doesn’t want to miss the 50th anniversary window but I really wish once the Orci stuff happened they just delayed the film a year and did it right. Now they are rushing this thing to the point they are adding new characters after the fact. I dont know what was wrong pushing it back to the winter like November or something, thats still far enough away from Star Wars but I guess the schedule wouldve been too competitive.

Aaron (Naysayers are going to nay)
March 12, 2016 3:17 am

Yeah, some of you are being ridiculous here. As a director, a couple points.

1 – Reshoots are common.
2 – Directorial changes are more common these days than ever before… Pixar is a pro at this.
3 – You are all saying this is a new character added last minute but I see no proof of that anywhere. She could be replacing another actor, we just don’t know.
4 – Effects (when done by competent/good effects houses) have made movies like these faster to make.
5 – Shooting in digital has made filming MUCH faster.

A last thought about the addition of this talented actress: New character or replacement for talent that wasn’t working out… She was likely brought onboard because of connections with someone on the project. Hmmm chance to add Iranian woman who won a major award recently, that is a no brainer.

I love this site but sometimes the comments come off as conspiracy theorist run amuck! That is why I read but rarely comment. Feel free to respond in any manner that you like, I will likely read what you say but decline to waste valuable time debating people who have no experience in making movies.

I am not worried about Beyond.

I Khan Believe it Ain\'t Butter
March 12, 2016 4:07 am

I’ve been saying the film is floundering based on the fact Paramount has been extremely low key about it and not making any effort to promote it for the 50th Anniversary.
We all saw the first trailer and it was nothing short of a spastic colon of bad judgement.
I understand many of you would disagree which in some strange way explains Trump running for president.

I guarantee the suit that wanted the film to be closer to Guardians of the Galaxy has now been fired.

Disinvited
March 12, 2016 8:46 am

“I guarantee the suit that wanted the film to be closer to Guardians of the Galaxy has now been fired.” –I Khan Believe it Ain\’t Butter,

Marc Evans has NOT been fired:

http://www.paramount.com/inside-studio/studio/executives/executives/marc-evans

Jack
March 12, 2016 8:18 pm

Because they typically don’t put ads on buses, flood TV with commercials on or do press junkets and talk shows four months before a release.

And when they do, we start to worry that they’re preemptively polishing a turd.

Heck, Ghostbusters comes out before Beyond and we just saw their first trailer. I actually think Trek should have waited a bit (I know they were trying to get the Star Wars audience, but, I personally don’t think it was ready).

And some of us here have been complaining for nearly two years that Paramount isn’t doing enough for the 50th (apart from releasing a $150 million movie and announcing a brand new series?). But come on, the actual anniversary is in the fall. Oversaturating the public with 50th anniversary stuff all year sounds like a bad idea to me (and I don’t think people are going to flock to a movie solely because Trek is 50 — they’ll go because it looks good).

Torchwood
March 12, 2016 5:46 am

My guess is they watched a rough cut and needed to add a scene to explain some plot point because either they felt the audience needed more hand-holding OR because they had to cut another scene for a different reason.

March 12, 2016 6:00 am

What’s also possible is that since from what we’ve seen, Earth doesn’t appear in the movie, and Paramount decided that no one could connect with the movie unless we see Earth. And so this is a solution to that.

Marc Henson
March 12, 2016 6:20 am

My concerns with this issue are quite small. I don’t have fears regarding re shootings, but people’s concerns are understood, since the trailer was released forever ago and the movie is literally months away and yet there has been no promotion of the film, not to mention the trailer has been widely panned.

Although I wasn’t really a huge fan of the trailer, there’s one thing I liked about it…it didn’t spoil the whole movie. The trailer for Terminator Genisys did, and even Batman v Superman seemed to reveal too much in its trailer.

At least we only know the basic premise, rather than the entire plot. Some trailers just reveal too much. Still, some kind of promotion would be good for God’s sake. Seriously how many trailers for Civil War and Apocalypse have their been already? The movie is fast ly approaching and we got basically nothing. Non-Trek fans probably don’t even know the movie is coming out this summer.

Action figures, posters, fast food kid’s meals…any kind of promotion to remind people that this is coming out. Back in 2009 they did good about promoting the movie…I wish they’d get back on track.

At least we got the CBS All Access show coming in January. So even if this movie fails horribly, at least it’ll come back to TV…or streaming or whatever.

Captain Danno
March 12, 2016 6:29 am

I agree there are some clues suggesting that the film could be in trouble, but I’m not going to worry too much just yet. Maybe they are reacting to the feedback after the trailer that the film seemed heavy on action and light on the thought provoking story elements some fans (myself included) are hoping for. Maybe bringing in a talented actress in a leadership role is for the addition of a cerebral storyline to complement the action.

Disinvited
March 12, 2016 7:53 am

Captain Danno,

Reacting to the feedback after the trailer??? I’d say more likely reacting to the feedback from test screenings.

Captain Danno
March 12, 2016 7:56 am

Good point. That’s probably more likely. But either way, hopefully it is for the good!

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 8:44 am

@Disinvited,

Indeed, that might be the case here.

Well Of Souls
March 12, 2016 7:46 am

I personally believe if this recut trailer had been used it would have been better received, however that is open for opinion. The tone is a dramatic change. I enjoyed it. Check it out… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6PwAGlSdrs

Jonboc
March 12, 2016 8:13 am

Saw the trailer again last night with a packed house for 10 Cloverfield Lane. Great reactions….first was buzz when it was clearly a Star Trek film and then laughs at all the right spots, then general chatter afterwards. This movie, re-shoots notwithstanding, is going to do just fine.

Bart
March 12, 2016 8:38 am

I have to say, since news of the new series broke, I haven’t given a second thought to this movie. I’ve got Trek back where it belongs on TV. This will just be another summer movie to entertain me for two hours. I have no expectations, or cares.

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 8:55 am

Maybe Aghdashloo is replacing the actress in this picture.

quantum47
March 12, 2016 11:03 am

Is that Chris Pine? I really can’t stand C. Pine. He’s such a bad actor and he gives a terrible performance as a starship captain (Kirk).

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 11:11 am

Yes, that’s indeed Chris Pine. The picture was taking during the filming in Dubai.

Tiger
March 12, 2016 11:59 am

I really hated him in the first Trek movie but he did grow on me in STID at least.

kmart
March 12, 2016 8:35 pm

Watching him onscreen wit Cumberbatch was painful; it was like seeing a highschool student against a pro. And that wasn’t just the writing, it was the epic fail-ness of his presence. Sort of like how poor Kyle Mc feels like a black hole at the center of Lynch’s DUNE, sucking at all the fantastic talent around him. (to be fair, KM did awesome work in TWIN PEAKS and was very good in THE HIDDEN, but he is utterly lacking in charisma in DUNE.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 11:56 pm

That’s funny, because I thought Cumberbatch was wooden and completely uninteresting in STID.

kmart
March 13, 2016 11:49 am

I think BC was extremely mis-directed – the scene with Pine is a good example, and if he had been more modulated the results would have been better. It’s kind of like how Montalban is very effective in MOST of TWOK, but in the last act he just goes too high and stays there. Cumberbatch keeps bringing it without moderation, and that is on Abrams.

Pine, on the other hand, can’t bring what he ain’t got. It’s like seeing an understudy to Redford in BAREFOOT IN THE PARK having to do scenes with Max Von Sydow in 3 DAYS OF THE CONDOR – would have been mismatch deluxe, because the guy ain’t Redford.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 1:54 pm

We will have to agree to disagree. I really like Pine’s interpretation of an earlier Kirk

Marja
March 14, 2016 1:25 pm

Me too.

TUP
March 13, 2016 1:48 am

I like Pine as Kirk. Unfortunately he has had lousy writing and lousy directing.

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 6:00 am

are you just begging for Shatner comments here?

Alec
March 13, 2016 11:04 pm

I agree…he didnt do it for me as Kirk. Something about him just cries spoiled rotten kid.

dswynne
March 12, 2016 1:47 pm

Why are women still wearing heels in the future? I thought wearing pumps or something is seen as sexist. If anything, we should be seeing men wearing “skants”.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 9:54 pm

They have “anti-grav” gel insoles.

Marja
March 14, 2016 1:36 pm

God I hope so.

I was glad to see that at least the women’s regular uniform boots had sturdy, comfortable-looking soles, suitable for running or climbing if necessary. (Of course if climbing she would have to be last in order of ascent so men wouldn’t be distracted by the view above. Stupid minidress. Though, to be fair, she might be distracted by the “view” of men as well)

The dress uniforms included high heels, a bit of a mystery, but they are optional nowadays and usually prescribed with skirts. Modern-day skirts aren’t so short though. Even the Starfleet women’s dress uniforms have short skirts, although, thanks be, they’re longer than the minidress.

Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 10:05 am

The biggest problem with BEYOND and with the TREK franchise is not reshoot, changing Directors or writer or being on CBS All Access…. it is all the negativity from “fans”. Seriously, if you read through every story on this site… see how many people are negative about this movie and the new series to come. People jump to conclusions for no reason.

“OMG, they are reshooting! The movie is in serious trouble!”

“OMG, the new series in on a pay service. I’m not going to pay to watch it. Trek is dead.”

“OMG, they fired the Directors and writers before filming even started and hired someone else. The movie is dead before it starts.”

“OMG, they released a trailer to go before Star Wars geared towards another audience… This movie is going to suck!”

Honestly, people… enough with the negativity. If it disturbs you that much – don’t watch it when it comes out.

Jonboc
March 12, 2016 10:38 am

Well, to be fair, their Trek is dead…doesn’t keep the rest of the majority from enjoying it and being thankful to see it flourishing!

Star Trek (…at least outside of Trekmovie.com) Lives!

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 10:52 am

@Jonboc,

Thankfully OUR Trek is back to its rightful place, on TV.

dswynne
March 12, 2016 1:45 pm

Actually, it’s more to do with a segment of the fanbase not liking JJ Abrams’ ‘Trek. If ‘Trek was run by Rick Berman now, they wouldn’t say a damn thing. For some reason, these “fans” are emotionally attached to the idea of not liking NuTrek, and they won’t be changing anytime soon. Me? It’s all ‘Trek to me, and judge each film, each series, each episode on their own individual merits…because I’m not, unlike these “fans”, a “child”.

Joe Canada
March 12, 2016 2:13 pm
People basically want TOS on the big screen. They want the same old formula exactly the same. The moment ANY news comes out… they immediately hate what they hear and are negative from the beginning. It was the same with Berman after TNG. People hated Voyager and Enterprise. The wanted Berman’s head for “killing” Trek. Trek fans are not happy unless they are complaining or criticizing everything. And that is what kills Trek. Not who is doing the movies or if there is a motorcycle in it or if the colors are not exact… Trek fans are the most critical and negative fans. Even worse than Star Wars fans! I am 48… I have been watching every incarnation of Trek since I can remember. Some I like more, some I like less. The point people seem to forget is that after 50 years, they are STILL making Trek! I could care less who is in charge… just give me a good story and adventure and I am in. I liked the first reboot… hated the second. It is FAR too early to cast judgement on BEYOND by seeing one teaser and a few still pictures. From what I see so far… the ship is out in space on an adventure. There are NEW aliens. and ORIGINAL story, some great scenes from the trailer. I am optimistic with every new story that comes out. I am sorry, but the biggest problem with Trek are the negative and whiny fans. That’s the… Read more »
Jack
March 12, 2016 8:23 pm

There’s no accounting for taste. They’re a very, very vocal minority, I think.

What worried me is that Bob was constantly here reading all this. He’s said these fans are the most listened to fans out there. And, if true, that’s scary as heck — because it’s like making public policy decisions based on the rants of a few dozen people who spend all day commenting on Breitbart.

Marja
March 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Agreed. It’s not such a great way to make decisions.

(But if they’d listened to me Uhura would have had rank stripes on her uniform, and worn a pair of black tights with that wee minidress. I guess sexualized women sell movie tickets)

kmart
March 12, 2016 8:32 pm

See, and I figure the closest I’ll ever get to TOS is FIREFLY – SERENITY is pretty close to an ideal Trek movie for me, so it IS possible to do something trekish that really works for me — just not (so far) by the folks authorized to do so.

Marja
March 14, 2016 1:46 pm

“Serenity” was quite violent c/w “Firefly” but I think you’re right; the close relationships are what made “Firefly” for me. TOS being set in a more military environment, didn’t have those close friendships (except among Kirk, Spock, and McCoy) but TNG, ENT, and DS9 did, to their great benefit.

kmart
March 12, 2016 8:31 pm

Don’t fit that at all. I despise BermanTrek nearly as much as AbramsTrek, only the fact that DS9 happened (probably against his will) on Berman’s watch redeems him at all.

It’s like Bond – for me, if you take Connery and Dalton out of the mix, there’s pretty much nothing I could live without (except of course John Barry’s scores and Ken Adam’s production design); ditto for TOS and DS9, those are the ones that worked, the other series are mostly filler at best.

And it isn’t USUALLY a matter of individual merit, because the wrongheadedness evinced in the ‘rest’ manifests throughout, so it is truly only the exception to the rule when MEASURE OF A MAN or YESTEDAY’S E emerges from the rubble/rubbish of BermanTrek.

Jack
March 12, 2016 8:19 pm

Amen, brother.

Marja
March 12, 2016 11:43 pm

Hee instead of TrekMovie maybe we should call the site Trek OMG

TUP
March 12, 2016 11:10 am

Perhaps Paramount knows this is the last Trek film for awhile and just don’t want to over spend. Its one thing to spend money in support of a franchise that will reap ancillary revenue for many years. But to spend a ton for a movie who’s rights you are losing?

And one has to suspect the suits have seen the film and aren’t overly excited about it. That doesn’t mean it will suck but it doesn’t seem like anyone is really giddy. They will give it the push required to make sure Star Trek fans and a few action fans see it but they won’t go to any great lengths to really give it a kick. At least thats what it seems.

Does CBS have the sole right to decide whether or not to license Star Trek to paramount for future films? I’d assume they’d not want to…what with their own series coming out.

Also, reports that DS9 and Voyager may get the remastered treatment exclusive to All Access too, to add value to the concept.

Does CBS have an option of making their own Star Trek film? Or hiring a third party studio to do so, rather than having to go with Paramount?

dswynne
March 12, 2016 1:41 pm

No. CBS owns ‘Trek television, while Paramount owns ‘Trek movies. Paramount can make as many films as they want to, if they want to. The problem is that because of the split, no one is on the same page, and, as a result, ‘Trek’s potential as a franchise is sorely lacking.

boborci
March 12, 2016 1:55 pm

i tried really hard to unite the franchises, but I just didn’t have the mojo.

Walt Kozlowski
March 12, 2016 6:11 pm

You were too Trekkie ;)

Gary 8.5
March 14, 2016 9:07 pm

All you can do is try your best Which you did.
You have nothing to be ashamed of Bob.

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 1:58 pm

@dswynne,

Paramount doesn’t ‘owns’ Trek movies, it producing the movies under license from CBS.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 11:46 pm

LMFAO

Marja
March 14, 2016 1:49 pm

TUP, I really hope Paramount surprises the heck out of you with great publicity that works and a movie that pleases!

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 11:44 am

Maybe CBS will buy Paramount & put ‘Star Trek’ under one roof!

===============================

Viacom chief Philippe Dauman makes a sales pitch for stake in Paramount Pictures
LA Times – March 7, 2016

Waving a big “for sale” sign, Viacom Chairman and Chief Executive Philippe Dauman touted a “once in a lifetime opportunity” presented by his plan to auction off a large piece of the storied Paramount Pictures movie studio.

It is a crown jewel out there,” Dauman said Monday at Deutsche Bank’s Media, Internet and Telecom Conference in Palm Beach, Fla.

Viacom announced two weeks ago that it would sell a significant stake, or about 40%, of the Melrose Avenue film studio. Paramount is one of Hollywood’s original studios, producing such culture-defining hits as “The Godfather,” “Forrest Gump,” “Mission: Impossible” and “Transformers.”

Viacom would like to sell the stake in Paramount by the end of June. Dauman took a moment on Monday to make his sales pitch during the investor conference, saying the sale would produce a “premium valuation” for Paramount.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-viacom-chief-philippe-dauman-paramount-pictures-sale-20160307-story.html

dswynne
March 12, 2016 1:39 pm

Wait. I thought Viacom owns both CBS and Paramount, but it sounds like Viacom wants to sell Paramount to CBS. I’m confused. Can someone break it down for me?

Ahmed
March 12, 2016 1:51 pm

@dswynne,

No, National Amusements owns both Viacom and CBS.

Last year there were rumors that Les Moonves wants to buy Paramount but Philippe Dauman, who was Viacom CEO at that time, denied the rumors and any plans to sell Paramount. This year, things are not looking good over at Paramount and as Viacom’s new Chairman, Dauman is more than willing to sell 40% of Paramount, not necessarily to CBS, to new investors,

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 1:52 pm

But I do sense Moonvies craves Paramount.

Marja
March 14, 2016 2:02 pm

Sh1t Son, Moonves craves MONEY. And plenty of it.

navamske
March 12, 2016 1:15 pm

Shohreh Aghdashloo appeared on “FlashForward” and had a few scenes with John Cho.

boborci
March 12, 2016 6:30 pm

I produced a pilot with SA that never got picked up. She was really witty and irreverant.

Jack
March 12, 2016 8:34 pm

Hmmm. Nice to hear. So, Bob, are you allowed to voice any optimism, or any other reaction, over Beyond?

I’m excited about Beyond (and the new series). That said, I’m still curious as heck about your/Payne/Mckay’s story.

And, I think I’ve said it before, but I owe you an apology for saying that STID’s critique on the War on Terror was a dozen or so years too late — because I think we’re seeing all of that happening again now with Trump etc. (and, sadly, thanks to human nature and a willfully short memory, we probably always will).

boborci
March 12, 2016 9:50 pm

love or hate my work, I think most would I agree that I say what I want, risking reputation and career sometimes to do so.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 10:44 pm

STID will be appreciated more as the years go by, Bob.

Think about Tombstone, Ubreakable and The Search for Spock.

Cygnus-X1
March 12, 2016 11:51 pm
boborci Today 9:50 pm Bob, reality check: you make comic-book movies-for-the-masses that are about as risky as a trip to Disney World. STID was hardly controversial—it (or you) simply didn’t try to say enough for there to be much controversy about it. A few people here and there criticizing your superficial 9 /11 parallels is hardly a risk to your reputation. More people take issue with the shape of the Earth (i.e. the Flat Earth Society) than did with the mild political suggestions of your Trek movie. That you’ve been saying what you want [to] is hardly heroic when what you want to say just so happens to conform with what your employer (the studio) and JJ also want you to say. You’ve admitted in the past that you tailored your Trek movie scripts (and I’d assume your other scripts also) in accordance with what the studio wanted. So, please, let’s not pretend that you’re Oliver Stone, or Harmony Korine, or any other screenwriter that actually writes controversial movies that say something meaty. I’ll grant that you did try to say something with STID, just not all that much. And your other movies—Transformers, Amazing Spiderman…those pablum TV shows of yours…Hawaii Five-O…Scorpion…you think these are reputation-risking works? Who do you think you’re fooling? Look, you’ve got the money from your pandering action-spectacle movies and TV shows. You can’t have an avant garde reputation, too. Especially when you haven’t earned it. “Risking reputation” indeed…hey, don’t break your arm patting yourself on the… Read more »
boborci
March 13, 2016 7:18 pm

Wasn’t describing my work, Describing my personal comments to those in my “community.”

Cygnus-X1
March 14, 2016 1:45 pm

boborci March 13, 2016 7:18 pm

Wasn’t describing my work, Describing my personal comments to those in my “community.”

Oh. Well, that’s different.

My bad. And I give you credit for speaking your mind as an individual. I don’t happen to agree with your views on 9/11-truther stuff, but I support you expressing your opinions about it. Frankly, I think your work would be more compelling if you infused it with more of what you’re passionate about. But, that’s another matter.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 7:57 pm

What an unnecessary and mean-spirited attack on Bob.

This kind of post makes me ashamed to be a Star Trek fan.

Despicable!!!

Marja
March 14, 2016 1:57 pm

Not despicable exactly but more ad hominem than the usual Cygnus comment. He’s within his First Amendment rights, but this kind of post is not one I personally welcome on the boards either. Crystal clear he really dislikes Bob and his work though.

nscates
March 15, 2016 4:14 pm

wow, what a douche-y comment. :(

Danpaine
March 14, 2016 7:17 am

….off topic, but this season of Sleepy Hollow is fantastic, by the way. Really enjoyable show, Bob.

Prodigal Son
March 12, 2016 10:37 pm

You are about eight decades late with your comparison. Trump is not about The War on Terror again, it’s about the rise of Benito Mussolini in Italy, but modernized for Americana and the internet age.

Marja
March 12, 2016 11:50 pm

Agreed. He scares me with that grandiosity, and his loyal followers give me the creeps.

Ahmed
March 13, 2016 8:56 am

@Prodigal Son,

Yep, Trump is a fascist.

Marja
March 14, 2016 1:59 pm

Ahmed, his followers are scary. Agreed, this truly reminds me of the rise of the Fasciti and the Nazis.

helenofpeel
March 12, 2016 4:39 pm

While reshoots are not uncommon, adding an entire new character is unusual at this point. I have low expectations for this film in the first place. Perhaps it will actually help.

Ralph Pinheiro
March 13, 2016 6:37 am

We don´t know if they are adding a new character or reshooting the same character with other actress. These are two completely different things.

albatrossity
March 12, 2016 7:14 pm

guys idk if you’ve seen this, probably have, but regardless it always makes me laugh: http://moviepilot.com/posts/3700163

sums up how I feel about beyond at this point. still amped to see it though, because regardless of how I feel about it right now, I’m pretty sure it’ll be a fun movie. and anything I fun is ok by me

“I’m glad we landed on a fun planet”

Jack
March 12, 2016 7:53 pm

Fun fact: Marina Sirtis said a while back, “After I was in “Crash” playing the Iranian lady, I had a spate of doing a lot of Iranian roles and I got to the point where I said to my people that I had kind of done this now and I didn’t want to be ‘that actress’ who plays the Iranian chicks when Shohreh [Aghdashloo] isn’t available.”

Alec
March 13, 2016 1:55 am

I have very little faith this movie will deliver. I hope i am wrong, but this isn’t the 50th anniversary for Trek I wished to see. I hope we are all surprised.

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 6:03 am

What did you wish to see? I’m just glad its not a remake of some episode from the 60s. Fresh minds, new ideas.

Ralph Pinheiro
March 13, 2016 6:45 am

Some times, I don´t know what many trekkers really want.

Captain on the Bridge
March 13, 2016 6:49 am

If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth…

Is it possible that this reshoot is also with one Captain Tiberius Kirk, aka William Shatner? Shohreh would make one incredible Vulcan.

Thorny
March 13, 2016 8:05 am

“What did you wish to see?”

Well, for once I’d like to see the Enterprise not get its rear-end handed to it by the bad guys. I don’t think the current generation of writers really “gets” that the Enterprise was a character on the show just as much as Kirk and Spock.

At least in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, the Enterprise was supposed to be “20 years old” (she was actually much older than that, Admiral Morrow was wrong) and she “died” to save Kirk and Co. But destroying a… what, four year old Enterprise in this movie, and for what by all indications is just to set up a “Fast and Furious” movie on some alien planet?

No, thanks. Bring on Star Trek Series 6 and lets get back to serious storytelling, please.

Disinvited
March 13, 2016 8:42 am

” I don’t think the current generation of writers really “gets” that the Enterprise was a character on the show just as much as Kirk and Spock.” — Thorny

Not to mention modern jurisprudence:

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/40201

holds, The Batmobile, a similar object of conveyance, is a character and afforded full copyright protection as such.

Joe Canada
March 13, 2016 10:04 am

The Enterprise, as much as she is a character, is always shot to hell. Even in the original series, it was beaten down in many episodes… right through the movies… constantly bombarded. That is keeping up with tradition.

So tell me what kind of story yo want to see. Action a la “TWOK”? Light and Character building a la “Voyage Home”, Romance a la “Guardian of Forever”, Thinking man’s movie a la “TMP”, Political a la “Undiscovered Country.”?

March 13, 2016 10:52 am

I’m a bit surprised that Enterprise did not fire off a single shot in Into Darkness. Not one shot. Not a phaser or a torpedo to be seen.

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 2:49 pm

I know right? People seem to forget that Kirk was trying to do the right thing (eventually) in that movie. Including not firing on another Fed ship.

Thorny
March 13, 2016 11:52 am

A balance of both action and story/character development, a story about a contemporary issue disguised as a 23rd century adventure, a’la Undiscovered Country or Voyage Home. The 2009 movie was somewhat balanced. ID was little more than mindless mayhem.

And I disagree that the Enterprise was always beaten down. In fact, it rarely happened. “Balance of Terror” and “Doomsday Machine” certainly, but what else? Even in the movies, there is Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country. Star Trek III really doesn’t count since she was already a mess from Khan in that one. The TNG movies, okay, but do we really want current Trek to emulate them?

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 2:51 pm

And I disagree that the Enterprise was always beaten down. In fact, it rarely happened. “Balance of Terror” and “Doomsday Machine” certainly, but what else? — what about Catspaw? There are plenty of times the E was on the brink of destruction!

Thorny
March 13, 2016 6:07 pm

I consider superior beings hijacking the Enterprise to be different than the Enterprise losing a one-on-one battle against another starship. Sure, there needs to be peril, but does the Enterprise have to be blown to within an inch of her life in all these Abramsverse movies (and in the next one gets destroyed)?

Disinvited
March 14, 2016 12:53 am

Thorny,

In the series, the Big E might have taken a few hits but the way the Abrams production treats its E you’d think they have some serious love/hate problems with it. Or maybe its just a tad too much TWOK love that leaves them convinced every battle engagement has to equally thrash the E or it won’t be “serious” enough to engage an audience who’ll always be comparing it to Khan’s battle?

Disinvited
March 14, 2016 12:33 am

CaptainSheridan,

In DOOMSDAY, Commodore Decker’s ship, The Constellation, took the beating and set the pattern for resurrecting a ship to get in a few licks, before ultimately sacrificing it to save the day — NOT Enterprise.

Marja
March 14, 2016 2:09 pm

@ Joe C, A touch, sir! A distinct touch! Like the bible, “Great TOS” is subject to many interpretations.

Prodigal Son
March 13, 2016 1:49 pm

You mean like in WOK abs TSFS?

CaptainSheridan
March 13, 2016 2:47 pm

Yeah, the E is a character so when she gets hurt you are supposed to care- just like when other characters get hurt. And if the ship was never in danger where the story? Ship in danger is the core of any Trek movie. Save the safe adventures for the show. The movies are the “big important missions” not the day to day stuff that happens in between.

Thorny
March 13, 2016 6:08 pm

But there’s also no suspense if you know the Enterprise is going to get its rear end handed to it in every movie.

CaptainSheridan