Karl Urban Confident Next Star Trek Movie To Shoot Within A Year

There hasn’t been a lot of news about the next Star Trek feature film since it was reported in December that producer J.J. Abrams had hired a screenwriter to draft a script based on an idea from Quentin Tarantino. Now another actor is sounding more optimistic about Star Trek returning to the big screen.

Karl Urban is out promoting his new film Bent, and of course he is being asked by the movie press about Star Trek. Speaking to LRM, the actor said he thought Tarantino’s involvement was “exciting,” and gave an update on where he see’s the Trek project:

Here’s the thing—they’re in the really early stages of development at this time. Quentin is about to direct his Hollywood film [Once Upon a Time in Hollywood] with Brad Pitt and [Leonardo] DiCaprio. You’re talking about a film after a film. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the ball is in Paramount’s court. Hopefully, they’ll green light another Star Trek movie. If they do it, then it’ll be a lot of fun.

Speaking to JoBlo the Urban seemed more optimistic about his return as Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy, saying:

“I have such a blast working on those Star Trek movies. You know, that cast, we’re like family at this point. I’m pretty confident within, hopefully the next year, that we’ll be back on the set.”

While there aren’t a lot of details, Urban’s comments are a contrast to those he was making in 2017, before the first news of the Tarantino Trek pitch. As recently as last October the actor seemed resigned to the possibility of 2016’s Star Trek Beyond being his final Trek film, saying “if we don’t get that opportunity [to make another Trek film] then I’m really happy to have ended on such a good note.”

Since Beyond, all the main cast members have expressed interest in getting back into space, and some frustration with wondering when or if that was going to happen. It isn’t clear if Urban’s optimism is based on information that the cast of Beyond would be involved with the Tarantino project. But, he sounds more sure than his fellow cast member John Cho who in January could only say he “hoped” his character (Hikaru Sulu) would be required.

Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy in Star Trek Beyond

Shatner says he was joking about returning as Kirk via CG tech

Speaking of actors talking changing their tone about the next Star Trek feature film, William Shatner seems to be backtracking a bit on his recent comments about how CG tech could be the solution to him playing Kirk again for Tarantino. In a new interview with the Toronto Sun, the actor now implies he was joking:

In a private conversation, I said that if there was a way to get back into Star Trek it would be through Ziva, who can make me look any age and dress me in any wardrobe. But that was tongue and cheek because right now the movies have their own cast. Looking ahead, virtual reality is something that is really going to take off in the next few years.

William Shatner with Chris Pine, shooting The Captains documentary in 2011

Keep up with all the news regarding the next Star Trek film here at TrekMovie.

newest oldest
Marja

Well, that cheers me up a little.

Both pieces of news ;^)

VOODOO

That’s great news

Mirror Galt

Wonder if they are going ahead with that treatment whereby Kirk and Kelvin Saavik must stop Mirror Edith Keeler, Young JFK, and Pon Farr Spock from attaining the Total Codex on Ariannus.

if they are fliming the fourth star trek movie its need a title and and rating like pg-13 the return of the uss enterprise ncc-1701-A goes into battle against a common enemy and different planet who will play kirk love intrest and will an actress will play saavik in her debut after star trek 4 i hope is two more star trek kelvin sequel series in flim until next year like 2019 live long and prosper

Dana Farricker

Eric Sanders: Um……. what?

Corinthian7

Chronologically speaking Saavik probably doesn’t fit the timeline. Her first appearance was TWOK and the timeline places that approximately 15 years after TMP which in turn was 2-3 years after the 5 year mission.

Marja

I think that MGalt post was pretty facetious, Corinthian. As for eric’s, it’s one of those posts that I never know if the posters are being facetious or seriously “shopping” story ideas to Paramount!

Corinthian7

I was replying Eric’s post Marja and rereading it I think you’re probably right about it being facetious but I couldn’t be a 100% certain either :-)

0dkinWood

This is just nice talk. Abrams killed it with his blown deadlines and idiot plots. He tried to jam 25 years of voyages into three movies, bringing us all the way up to having a 1701-A. It was a comic book Reader’s Digest version of Trek. The contracts are up, the obligations are fulfilled. If there’s another movie, it’ll be in 5 years with yet another reboot.

Dom

I’ll never understand why they insisted on doing two origin stories set in a parallel universe – I can understand a Prime Universe origin story, but can’t see the point in origin stories anywhere else. Just treat it as a separate continuity and throw us into the middle of the five-year mission. The two pilots worked brilliantly with that approach. They could have opened the films amidst the five-year-mission and told a story that tied back to the earliest days, if they had to do that.

Actually, I’d love to see a Star Trek movie that tells the story of a starship, rather than a specific crew. Make it a bit like films such as In Which We Serve; start with the ship’s construction and follow it all the way through until its destruction or decommissioning, watching the various personalities who pass by and the adventures of people who travel on her.

Tiger2

Two origin stories? OK I’m confused, what are you referring too? There was only the first film that did that, the other two were just them on adventures.

Fabio

Well said! That was my feeling when I began to see the last movie they made (the one of the gay Sulu, I do not remember the name): five years of adventures and still in the same place, Kirk is not even capable of a simple diplomatic mission. I wish the new movie never happens and instead we have a Star Trek Discovery movie or something that happens in the XXX century, anything but this pastiche.

DiscFan

Actually, the fanboys are killing Trek. I’m surprised it hasn’t been killed off already. No matter what Trek comes out… the fanboys aren’t happy with it. Bitch, whine and moan about JJ Trek… Discovery… Voyager… Enterprise. There can be other iterations of Trek that aren’t TOS and TNG.
I come here and rarely post but I read so much negativity about Discovery or the new Trek movies. It really is disheartening. Why can’t Trek have an expanded universe? Why can’t they tell different stories? Why can’t a new generation of Trek show runners have a different vision? So what if the ship looks a little different. So what if the uniforms don’t look like they did in the 60s. So what if it takes place before TOS and not after Nemesis. I’d LOVE to hear all your bright ideas of what YOUR Trek would be like right now. You do know a majority of fanboys will hate your version too.
I don’t like everything that is out there. I wasn’t impressed with some tos and tng episodes. Wasn’t happy with Into Darkness or Nemesis. But I do like that are still making new shows and movies after 50 years. It is quite remarkable.
I know that the fanboys will rip apart my post… but that is to be expected because the fanboys are so predictable. LLAP. Keep on Trekkin’!

AdAstraPerAspera

This. 1000%. You have hit the nail on the head. For fans of a franchise that purports- amongst other things- Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, a lot of my fellow fans seem incredibly small minded when it comes to what Star Trek should be!

ML31

“a lot of my fellow fans seem incredibly small minded when it comes to what Star Trek should be!”

Correction. What YOU think Trek should be.

navamske

“I’d LOVE to hear all your bright ideas of what YOUR Trek would be like right now.”

A show set in the TOS era, with the look of “Trials and Tribble-ations.” And voice cameos from the surviving cast.

Tiger2

Navamske, no offense but why I’m glad TOS fanboys are not in charge of the franchise. That would look and feel silly to most people under 50. And why do we need ‘voiceovers’ from the old cast? Those people are literally in their 80s now. They had their time, lets move on. Nimoy was great in the Kelvin films (well the first one) because he had a real reason to be there. And this being a prequel before TOS then it would make less sense for them to be there. And I too have issues that Discovery basically looks like another era completely which is why I don’t even get WHY they chose this time period? But that said I like it that it DOESN’T remind me of TOS too much. Its really its own thing once you remove Sarek and Harry Mudd. For me, I don’t hate prequels just because it feels like they are going back, I hate them because they can’t TRULY go forward in the sense they can just feel like their own thing. There is always a call back SOMEWHERE to make you think “Hey, remember this?!?” but fortunately Discovery hasn’t gone overboard with it as I thought, especially since so much of it feel like its already in another era anyway. And I’m fine they met up with the Enerprise because while its the ultimate TOS fanboy service, it was a smart move to just show it and move on without this constant hint-hint,… Read more »

DeanH

I too would enjoy a few of those stories. I assume most fans already know this but just in case you don’t – there are about 20 or so “Star Trek Continues” or “Star Trek New Voyages” fan films that were made over the past 10 plus years. Some of those episodes are written by original TOS writers and feature some of the old TOS cast, guest stars and recreations of the original sets complete with the 1960s special effects and sounds. Just like TOS, some of them are really good/great stories (I was really impressed with their sequel to Mirror Mirror plus the ST Continues two part finale). They may or may not be part of the ST canon but who cares – so for those who want to watch the continuing voyages of Capt Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew of TOS Enterprise, check them out on Youtube.

Captain Ransom

Yeah, its fine for a computer screen but to be honest, it’s just nostalgia. Put that on tv and it just won’t fly in 2018. And, sorry to say, would fail miserably. I like watching the fan films too. The acting is pretty bad most of the time but makes me smile as I remember my childhood. But would NOT want to see this low budget stuff on the big screen. Sure, a few thousand people would like it… but really.

Marja

I cannot say enough how much I agree. Haters [“fanboys”] are doing everything they can to “preserve their sacred vision” which is quite different from Roddenberry’s original inclusive idea.

I can’t figure out how many fanboys are
– prejudiced and resentful that there are “SJWs in charge” because the “minorities” seem to be “taking over”
– just stuck in the past [and which past? TOS? TNG? I can occasionally tell] and want the scripting to be episodic, not serialized
– want “their” version of Trek which doesn’t bear out upon simply viewing the series.
– view themselves as the Arbiters of the Trek Canon

So confusing and, IMHO rather stupid of them.

TUP

@Marja – “fanboys” when used as an insult is among the lowest of low when trying to make a point (Im speaking more of the OP than you).

Someone posting on a Star Trek forum is, most assuredly a “fanboy”. And quite frankly, the Trek fans disliking something is not ruining Star Trek. Making crap that fans dislike is.

STID was universally hated.

Discovery is widely beloved. The “haters” that crap on Discovery and whine about it arent fanboys or fans. Its the keyboard warrior mentality and anonymous nature of the internet which creates opportunity for trolls to create gimmicks. The “Discovery hater” gimmick is most tiresome but fortunately, there are only a few.

DeanH

Hmmm I was going to post something about the earth’s population but maybe we will leave that for another day. Marja, I think the makeup of the Discovery crew is just fine.

DeanH

Btw thanks to Trekmovie for having a forum where all Trek fans can come to visit and rationally air their comments (or grievances) no matter how they feel. IDIC and LLAP!!

DeanH

No I don’t think it is stupid, just a little myopic and backward looking. As someone once said, “You have to look at something for what it is, NOT what you want it to be!” I look at Discovery and IMO I see a good show, one that can be better but certainly not the flawed terrible show that SOME fans think it is. Yeah, when people complain about blue lights on the nacelles or the angle of the section joining the star drive to the saucer section, my eyes start to glaze over. It doesn’t mean their opinions are bad ones or stupid, just not ones that I share or care too much about – and apparently millions of viewers are liking what they see in Discovery both in the US and around the world. That doesn’t mean they are right – just that enough viewers are liking what they see so that the show is renewed. According to some analytics, it was the number one show on TV for the finale, I hope that keeps up for season two.

Marja

Yeah, when people complain about blue lights on the nacelles or the angle of the section joining the star drive to the saucer section, my eyes start to glaze over.

Yep mine too. Little to no storyline value, nostalgia, “not my Trek” [well of course it isn’t, if “your Trek” is frozen in time].

TUP

I dont mind a discussion about details. Most people discussing the new Enterprise have been pretty positive. Even when notpicking its really more of a discussion. The people that are “haters” generally arent intelligent enough to engage in full discussions. Its just “sucks!” and moves on.

The real issue is the “not my Star Trek” crowd which complains about women, blacks, gays etc. I have been rather surprised by how many bigots and losers are actually Trek fans. Very sad.

This site (and others) do a good job of weeding those people out though. Not perfect, but good.

TUP

That’s the least insightful comment on this forum in a long time.

Marja

TUP, I’m not really sure which comment you’re referring to. Since I think, from prior comments, you like Discovery, as do I, I’d like to know. Just curious.

TUP

@Marja – I was referring to the comment that blamed “fanboys” for ruining Star Trek with their complaining. It makes no sense.

Spiked Canon

I thought so too TUP. I couldn’t believe the positive responses lol

DeanH

I think there are many long time fans of the show who watched TOS as a child who seem to love or like Star Trek Discovery. Some of my Trek friends are only luke warm to it but they still watched every week. No, it is not perfect but neither was TOS and TNG was downright awful in Season 1. And don’t get me started about some of the writing in TOS season 3! Yikes!! I understand some of the negativity but IMO arguing production values is a subjective topic – like say sports. Story philosophy and themes are something that are more concrete and I can understand why some didn’t like the story arc. I generally like how the season was wrapped up and am looking forward to seeing what the writing team can come up with fresh for season 2, now they are not saddled with what Fuller left for them. Production begins back in Toronto in a few weeks!!

Marja

Yes, story values are the most important thing in Trek. And Disco was doing a fine job until they caved to the fanboys at the end of the season by “lightening it up” so considerably.

The values of Starfleet versus the darkness in season 1 Disco were very well portrayed in the character of Burnham. She sought knowledge about the Tardigrade’s interface with the DASH drive and managed to free the creature once the scientific principle [okay scientists, I get that it may have been way out there as science]. Her determination in the face of incredible odds is Kirk-like and her devotion to science, Spock-like.

Stamets showed a willingness to risk his life to explore the mycelial network. He also had to sacrifice some idealism to help win the war. And, er, get Mirror Lorca home, without his knowledge.

Saru enforced the principles of Starfleet in the Mirror arc. He showed the cruelty of war when he “gave” TyVoq to L’Rell in the brig. Saru also fell victim to Paradise Syndrome on Pahvo.

Also add that the Pahvans did not understand the black/white concepts of warfare.

Just a few examples of valuable food for thought from Disco.

DeanH

I would not give too much credit to the naysayers for the plot lines in the last two episodes. As far as I know, those were in the can by about mid October (since episode 13 was done in late Sept) so I think the stories were already finalized well before SOME fans complained. As I stated way back then, this is a serialized show, so you can’t really comment on overall story arcs or themes until the end of the first season or at the very least, until the end of each chapter.

DeanH

Why not throw in the Gorn from TOS and the paper mache boulders as well. Just kidding. I of course, respectfully disagree! LLAP.

Frank

I agree totally! DSC has elevated Trek to new levels of quality and storytelling.. Those ‘fanboys’ bemoaning it and staying mired in the past are in the minority and having zero effect thankfully.. Roll on season 2 and Star Trek 4 with Tarantino as director.. can’t wait!

Perplex

“DSC has elevated Trek to new levels of quality and storytelling.”
Okay, I laughed. But then again, the producers themselsves seriously compared it to Game of Thrones, so who knoes who is joking and who isn’t these days.

ML31

Perplex, the producers said a lot of things about the show that never happened, either. One wonders how much of that was because of the behind the scenes turnover in the people literally running the show… But a lot of things were said by actors themselves in interviews long after the series was shot and a lot of what they themselves said never materialized. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. I really do.

DeanH

Well said sir (or maam). Respectfully agree with much of what you say, although I would also say that some fanboys like myself really enjoyed Enterprise and now Discovery. You are right about the look of the ship. Being angry about the lights on the nacelles of the Enterprise on Discovery is like saying you want the Tellerites and Andorians to still wear the pig mask and static antenna costumes we saw in TOS from the 60s!! Can’t wait for season 2 of Discovery!! More importantly, thank goodness for the millions of other fans who seem to feel the same way!!

Spiked Canon

They will only make a movie that can make money. PERIOD. They will only make a TV show that can make money. PERIOD. The only way you make money is to be able to pull in people outside of the fan base. PERIOD. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ talks

Captain Ransom

Well, um, duh! You don’t make a tv sho or movie to lose money. LOL.

Marja

Yes, Spiked, As Woody Allen said, “It’s show BUSINESS, not show FRIEND.”

Disinvited

Spiked Canon,

The sad Paramount legacy of Brad Grey is that he took Sherry Lansing’s money-making formula that even made money off of STAR TREK NEMESIS and flushed it down the toilet for his smoke and mirrors guaranteed money-making formula that’s left Paramount with no money looking for a buyer.

So history has proven your assertion wrong, i.e. they will only make a movie that they IMAGINE will make gobs of money. Guys like Grey, who had absolutely no prior movie studio experience before his hire, didn’t have a clue how to make money off of movies and most especially STAR TREK.

Moonvies history with STAR TREK isn’t much better, but so far, so good.

Marja

Yep. If it was Grey’s brilliant idea to position Trek as a “blockbuster/tentpole” franchise, the man is an idiot.

tony

actually it raised the domestic and international gross for the franchise starting with the ’09 film.

Tiger2

Yes Tony but the problem is none of those films have made a lot of actual profit for the studio because they cost so much money which is what gets missed over and over again. STID is the franchise’s biggest money maker and yet if you believe the reports it only made them $30 million in the theaters. Now that said I’m sure with the TV deals, blu rays etc it probably has made them over $100 million but all that effort and money feels like chump change for what they get back COMPARED to other films in these budget brackets. In other words, the ROI just isn’t big enough. And of course Beyond bombed outright, only the second Trek film to do it along with Nemises (some considered TFF a bomb but it actually made money . It just made the lowest out of those films at the time and literally made half of what TVH did a few years prior so it was a HUGE disappointment but not a bomb. It also didn’t cost nearly $200 million to make either). The reality is they are spending $250+ million for these films (including marketing) and yet can’t make double that. For a blockbuster franchise film, $500 million has become a baseline for just being considered moderately successful. As try as they might I just don’t think a Trek film will ever get there. STID came the closest but no cigar. Why waste your money on that when you can… Read more »

TUP

Yeah but you should see Bob Orci’s bank account! lol

Disinvited

tony,

Re: raised the gross

Pretty meaningless number inflation with ever increasing mechanisms to inflate the ticket prices to hide the fact that actual number of butts in the seats have been deflating.

And the bottom line is Paramount wouldn’t be desperate to find someone, anyone, to invest millions in it so it can afford to make more movies if there were any significant return on investment in such.

TUP

Its a shame too because I think the public would have loved a GREAT dramatic Star Trek films that didnt cost 200 million bucks. We’ve debated it forever here but good sci fi, good drama, a good story. Shave that budget way down.

Plenty of quality sci fi without a million meaningless flash bangs.

But 2009 was a good start. But it gave a certain lousy writer too much power to push his personal Anti-W ar story and we got a terrible STID that just sucked the life out of whatever hope 2009 had given us (and even 2009 wasnt THAT good)

Jorge Alonzo

Totally agree, the Trek Fundamentalists on this, and other sites are a drag. If it’s doesn’t have a Vasquez Rocks or painted face Frank Gorshin ITS NOT TREK!!!! The JJ movies opened up the Trek universe to my kids and my wife and for that I am grateful to the creators of those. They enjoy TNG , TOS, TAS and other Trek , including Disco , specifically because they were introduced to it by the JJ movies. since Trek 09. Heck my 4 year old see’s all the Star Wars posters and toys and calls it “Star Trek”, that warms my heart every time . I’m just glad to see it back after thinking it was dead for good through the early and mid 2000’s. I hope a 4th movie with the cast gets made, they haven’t been perfect but the spirit and heart or Trek is there.

Marja

Yes Jorge!
I may be an uncritical idiot in the eyes of some, but I love Disco and I loved the new Trek movies, even though they had major faults and plot holes. The mutual love in each cast, and the good acting, draw me back every time.

TUP

I agree to an extent, Marja. I love Star Trek. So its like the old expression – pizza is like sex, even when its bad, its still pretty good. Bad trek is better than no Trek.

That ALMOST doesnt work for STID which was so horribly bad that its hard to find any redeeming qualities. But all the Trek films had pros and cons. I generally like all of them, even the worst ones (except STID which was garbage).

And while I really like Discovery, I see its flaws. But the people going insane over it are internet trolls playing a gimmick persona. You cant be a fan and hate it. You just cant. You can see its flaws. You can like it less. But there is too much goodness to hate.

Marja

Yeah, TUP,

Yes, reasonable people can see the flaws in Disco while we love it anyway. There are a number of gimmicks DISCO’s writers pulled this year, particularly the Mirror thing, but a lot of folks loved it. The last episode was a head-scratcher for sure — L’Rell’s going to hold down 24 conflicting houses with a bomb? Burnham let Emperor Georgiou go? Tyler’s with the Klingons? and more, like the terrible death of Dr Culber. Media buzz for sure. Or should I say “fer shure.”

A lot were done to generate social media buzz, a trend I suppose we should all get used to. That said, I’m not shy about joining the clamor of “Find Prime Lorca!” ;^)

I call myself a Trekker because we Trekkers love Trek despite its faults, and we accept the realities surrounding it, while Trekkies seem to feel it is absolutely perfect as it is, or particularly as it WAS in “their” ideal Trek era.

TUP

@Marja – the people doing Discovery had a crazy thing to over come. This was a series that was delayed, had the show runner leave abrubtly and if rumors are true had poor SFX that had to be changed, budgets adjusted etc. You had new creative people and show runners come on board and take over a project that wasnt really theirs.

Even if we love guys like Meyer and Joe who have moved on and we see them leaving as a negative, its not uncommon. New people came in and want their own people in place so dealing with that turn over is something too.

There were creative things that Fuller put in place that couldn’t be changed (much of the first season story, uniforms, Klingons, Discovery etc).

So I say Discovery is good regardless and damn fine when taking that into account. But my expectations are HIGHER for season 2 – this is the creative teams chance to basically start over and do what they feel is best. Its all on them now.

Kirok

Hi Marja.

In that same vein, reasonable people can see the flaws in STD and consider it bad because of the sheer number of problems with it. That doesn’t make the “haters” or wish all Trek could be TOS or TNG. It just means they though the show was unworthy. I think we all wish the show was good. Not even perfect. Just good. There are a lot of fans who hate TFF to the point they even pretend it never happened! Does that their viewpoints less than others just because they thought a movie was terrible? Of course not. To me, there is no difference in the term Trekkie or Trekker. It’s just a different term used at a different point in time. And I’ve always said bad Trek is better than no Trek. So in that sense I’m glad Discovery is here. I just wish it were, you know… Good. Especially given the platform chosen to present it to the public. I have higher expectations for the show just because of that alone.

Tiger2

I agree with this Kirok! I like Discovery and have sang it praises in the past. I have also hated things about it and have no problem being critical either. The funny thing is I have been attacked on both sides for being too harsh at times but then sounding like an apologist at others. So I’m doing something right. ;) And I don’t think I have gotten on people’s cases who think it sucks. I HAVE gotten on people’s cases who thinks it sucks but then attack people because they don’t share the same opinion as them or pretend their opinion should be treated as fact. I know A LOT of people don’t like the show and I do understand why. I agree with a lot of their points. But I think for me overall, A. I’m not AS bothered by the problems and B. Yeah like you I am willing to have a show over no show so I’m giving it a chance regardless. I don’t hide the fact I hate its a prequel, especially since I don’t see the point of one after seeing what they did, but I’m perfectly fine with anything they do just as long as they present good stories with good characters. Discovery has gotten there 70% of the time for me which is decent for a first season Trek show. There are things about it I don’t think I will ever love to be frank, but there is enough there to enjoy… Read more »

Kirok

Thanks, Tiger. This is the internet after all. Going back to last summer there were already people who you could see were going to love it no matter what and people who were going to hate it no matter what. For them either no criticism is valid because it’s just someone hating or the others are just fools who cannot see how terrible the show is. I have found valid points from both perspectives but more often than not I find it no fun to talk to such people. Although I tend to lean on the “STD was not good” side. I think my posts made that obvious. J

I, too, would like to see the seasons get better. I was expecting a lot more from season one and given the platform that was chosen I don’t think it fair to make the customers wait two or three seasons for the show to “gel”.

TUP

@Kirok – Im glad you agree. So can you explain why you decided a year ago you’d hate it and nothing was going to change your mind?

And you can you point out the people that decided they were going to love it no matter what? Because I dont think i’ve seen one person here that says its a perfect series.

In regards to the show to waiting to “gel”, no one is suggesting the producers KNOW the show is “bad” but think it will “gel”. That’s just nonsense. What we do know is TNG was pretty bad its first couple of seasons and got better after some creative changes. DS9 got better when they developed the war story to focus on.

What is fact is Discovery is the best first season since TOS. Im not sure what the platform has to do with anything. If anything, being on Network TV would have created more pressure to “gel” immediately than being on streaming.

And given the amount of original content on streaming services now, making the platform a discussion point seems really moot.

Tiger2

No worries Kirok. And for the record, I don’t have any issues with your criticism of the show. They sound reasonable and fair to me. It doesn’t mean I agree with all of it but I definitely can see your POV on it. And yeah everyone here seem to have the Trek they love and the Trek they hate, its understandable. I don’t love the KT films like I don’t love Discovery but there are things I like more than I don’t. But I get why others don’t like them like I get why so many hate Discovery. But yes its just the first season, hopefully that will change in time. And yes hopefully it won’t take 3 seasons to happen either. Its been over a decade since we had a new Trek show though and its being run by people who frankly don’t have a lot of Trek or even sci fi experience. But I think they relied on the writers who do and obviously followed most of what Fuller laid out before he left and why it turned out at least decent IMO if not great. I will be honest though outside of the MU episodes and the Sanest Man there is really nothing about the first season that makes me want to rewatch it and that’s really the best barometer of all, do you just want to watch it again. Sadly for most of the episodes its no although I can’t say I hated any of them… Read more »

TUP

@Tiger – the problem is feeding the trolls. It can be hard to keep track. But when someone hated Discovery a year ago and still doesnt and cant articulate why, they arent a reasonable person with reasonable criticisms.

Tiger2

Of course I don’t disagree TUP. Some people will just hate it no matter what. But to be fair I think thats a small pool of people here. Most people seem to have valid reasons why they don’t like it or its just not the show for them. I’m fine with that, its just the people who seem to think their opinion come off as fact and attack others for liking it. Thats what bothers me. Like what you like and hate what you hate, but don’t speak for the entire fanbase no matter what your feelings are about it.

TUP

@Kirok, reasonable people dont hate something before ever knowing anything about it. Many of us correctly predicted that the people that hated Discovery before seeing it would hate it no matter what because they’d never admit they were wrong.

People like you are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people discuss Discovery quite fairly, pros & cons. I’m not sure Ive ever seen anyone so in love with the show they deny its flaws but there are few that are so in love with their own internet gimmick that they deny its positives….

Dyonesse

If you ordered a rare steak from the menu, and were served a bowl of sweet porridge instead, wouldn’t you complain? I mean sure, it’s a lovely porridge, with honey and nuts and raisins and stuff, but… it just isn’t a steak, and it shouldn’t have been advertised as such.

The problem with “contemporary Star Trek” (so, basically, pretty much everything made after DS9) is that, instead of catering to their core audience, they are trying to attract an entirely new crowd – but for some reason, they are still using the old name. So now we have an entirely new crowd who excitedly cheers: “Wow, this steak is so good, with all the plumpy soft raisins and crispy nuts.” And we have another crowd, the original crowd, complaining: “What the fnord, this is not steak, this is some strange meatless gunk. Why are you serving me a dessert before the meal?” But who is to blame for this situation – the eaters? No, of course not. It’s the cook. The cook who was taking liberties where there were none to be taken.

Disinvited

Dyonesse,

Re: wouldn’t you complain?

I suppose. Although, oddly enough, my local taco shack has an assortment of meat burritos for me to choose. The least expensive is a fish burrito that I love, and the most expensive (and popular) is a steak and egg one. It is not an uncommon occurrence that I’ll get the steak and egg mistakenly when I ordered and paid for the fish. The S&E doesn’t satisfy my craving but I often don’t complain when they mix it up because it’s a hell of a bargain and I don’t hate it — it just wasn’t what I wanted when I ordered.

Alex

The reboots are specifically made with a general, no-Trek audience in mind. How could Star Trek fans possibly kill it? Paramount and the producers even admitted that Trek fans are too insignificant as a group to carry a tentpole movie, which is true. If anyone, general audiences killed it by not turning up to see it.

Also, 0dkinWood is right with his assessment. It’s just recycling of some random story elements, spiced up with trifles and name-dropping, jammed into the framework of undistinguishable blockbuster scripts. There is really nothing that stands out, which is said just, because I think the casting nails it and the effects and set pieces are fantastic.

Captain Ransom

Um, I’m a Trek fan that likes Discovery.. and 2 of the new movies. But I get what he means. The “fanboys” can be a whiney bunch.

0dkinWood

I’ve been very consistent about *my* version of Trek. It would be an episodic anthology, with each show set in a new ship, with a new crew, in all the different eras. Give the fans the trappings they want with ships, costumes, and eras, but by being an anthology every episode can be unpredictable and exciting. Bring in great writers to write episodes who wouldn’t want to join the full-time writer committees that write entire seasons of shows these days. But they’ll NEVER do this. You say the “fanboys” are ruining Trek with whining. Please tell me how they ruin anything when Hollywood does the opposite?

Tiger2

OdinWood, maybe a different crew every season would’ve been interesting (that Fuller apparently wanted) but every episode? Yeah that does sound like overkill. I think your idea is we can get a lot of variations of Starfleet and the Federation which would be interesting but it would probably lose people.

I think though that MAYBE we could get an anthology series if we have a full time ship show along side it like Discovery. So one show you have the typical TOS/TNG/VOY etc model of a ship exploring space. But then you could have a second show that can maybe have a different crew every year but wildly different settings which I think could be fun. One season its a DS9/space station thing. Next season its a starfleet crew going through a first contact process with a new species. Season after that a cadet story line at the academy and so on.

As I said it wouldn’t be the MAIN show, it would run aside Discovery but be open to mix things up in a big way and taking place in different time eras. That would be different to do IMO and it doesn’t always have to be just another starship premise.

DiscFan

Case in point.

Dana Farricker

I’m very glad 0dkinWood is not involved with the show. That would be a HORRIBLE and ridiculously expensive idea.

DataMat

That would be a very expensive idea, and a terrible one all the same. Star Treks success was borne out of the family dynamic of the shows. We felt like we were watching our extended family week-to-week. With your idea we wouldn’t have that!

Marja

Well, we could, if there were say, two or three crews we followed, but yeah, it’s the investment and would require viewers to be attentive and attach to characters easily [like me, if they’re well-acted].

Maybe they could manage two crews at one time. IDK. It’s an interesting idea to me. Say, a medical ship dispatched to disasters that also does rescues [I see the potential for battle medicine and helping people after disasters with mystery thrown in to find the causes, be they natural or corruption; and mystery surrounding how a vessel disappeared and why], and a Section 31 ship, interfering throughout the galaxy ;^)

And of course our exploratory vessel! Let Discovery discover, in between fightin’ Klingons …

… AND FINDING PRIME LORCA

DataMat

Just wouldn’t do it at all for me.

All your proposing is changing too new casts every season or two? That’s insanely silly, financially unfiesable, and plainly lazy. Actors rarely settle into their characters in the first season of a show anyway, so that’s another strike against this idea. Star Trek is an ensemble t.v. series. It works because of that. Bringing in strangers to us viewers every couple of seasons is really stupid.

ML31

It is true such a concept would be overly expensive and it would be difficult to get behind characters that change every season. But it would be different and new. Something that I really think Trek could use. Make no mistake, I’d rather see something used and tired but good than new and different but terrible. Quality needs to come first.

The river temarc

New Coke was different and new, too

TUP

Ummm, did you just switch handles?

ML31

No. And I’m perfectly willing to engage. (Let bygones be bygones as it were) However, you start with your baiting comments and intentional misinterpretations of posts again and you will be ignored.

TUP

Oh please. ML disappears, Kirok appears saying the EXACT same things in the EXACT same ways. Hey, if sockpuppeting is allowed (or someone is playing games, so be it). But really…

If people misinterpret your posts, perhaps you should explain them better. You cant say “ABC” and then say the opposite and claim people misinterpreted you.

So, Im always “bygones be bygones” but dishonesty is dishonesty.

ML31

OK. Some things never change. It’s always the other guy with you, TUP. So long and thanks for all the fish.

TUP

@Kirok31 – actually its rarely the other guy. The vast majority of people here have a wonderful polite discussion about Star Trek. Its the very few that have a hard time playing nicely in the sandbox. Just dont be a jerk. And dont lie. And dont push knowing false information as if it’s fact, which you did over and over and over again in attacking CBSAA and claiming Netflix (and streaming) was a failed technology being propped up by disc rentals. Its not true.

Other than that, have at ‘er. But pick a handle because its confusing for people when you have more than one, my friend!

Kirok

ML, I wish you luck. I’ve had to ignore this guy for months as when I responded he continually made accusations and misinterpretations no matter what was said. It’s almost as if he WANTED to start another flame war. I told him I was through responding and I haven’t read a post of his since. And the goofy thing, I see he is still responding to me in spite the fact that I haven’t read a word beyond his screen name. I don’t like ignoring posters but some have just earned it. If you succeed perhaps I will start reading and responding again. Again, good luck.

TUP

@Kirok you often reply to me in your replies to others so I take immense pleasure in knowing that you pretend to ignore me and yet realise that I’ve often educated you. You dont seem like a bad guy. But you should be less close minded.

Just brilliant.

Tate Roberts

100% agree with your comment.

Star Trek’s worse enemy has always been TREKKERS!

Marja

Nah, Tate, it’s TREKKIES

TrekkERS acknowledge reality [TV is a business; the actors are not their roles].

Dana Farricker

The problem is that people use ANY labels, whether it’s “Trekkie” or “Trekker.” Either way, it’s childish.

Spock Jenkins

If you like STAR TREK, you’re not a real STAR TREK fan (!)

Marja

LOL Spock

Gary 8.5

When Paramount confirms there isn’t going to be a fourth movie, I will believe it, not before.

Phil

Funny, because when Paramount confirms there will be a forth movie, then I’ll believe it. Anything else is just speculation, or in Urban’s case, wishful thinking.

Curious Cadet

@Gary — it’s unlikely you’ll ever get the announcement that a studio is not going to do something. So your first sign will be the announcement that a new Trek is being made by someone other than Abrams, in 1-2 years, earliest. If Paramount does green light another Abrams movie, it probably won’t happen anytime soon, and won’t likely hit the box office until 2020, at the earliest. Not much of a way to build a franchise. Paramount has already announced its priorities, and Trek is not among them.

Marja

Wonder if Tarantino’s rumored involvement is piquing their interest in the project.

I’ll believe it when they greenlight, start casting, and scouting for locations ….

Cannot say enough how much Abrams infuriated me with his continual delays between movie 1 and 2. And then, the movies! I loved them at the time, but the main stand-outs for me were the actors and their performances.

ML31

While that is nice optimism from Mr. Urban, I won’t believe it until Paramount officially gives it the green light.

Tate Roberts

I hate to break it to you Karl Urban, but I have a distinct feeling that your version of Star Trek is not going to be in the next movie.

Meaning….I don’t see the Kelvin cast getting another movie.

Mike Thompson

Hope you are wrong Tate

Tate Roberts

Me too. :)

Eric

I bet Karl (along with almost everyone else) has no idea what will happen when Tarantino takes over the next Trek film. It may not even include these actors.

Tiger2

Agreed. No one seems to know if he’s discussing doing it in the Kelvin universe. For all we know it could be something completely new and different. For the record I would be fine if they came back, but its really no telling. I’m shocked though that no one at least tells them if what they are discussing even involves them but I guess they are worried if the actors know it would spread like wildfire and they want to keep speculation down.

Still though I never understand how if you DO expect them to do it, how do you create a story with them in it if no one has even signed on for it since most are no longer contracted? But then again that may be a hint they are going a very different way.

Phil

If Tarantino takes over the next film. It’s by no means a done deal.

Spock Jenkins

Agreed. The Tarantino thing is up in the air at the moment. And with all the news coming out about his ( seeming ) defense – previously – of Weinstein, and the whole Uma Thurman thing, I wonder if Paramount are even that keen – now – to dive in fully with his TREK project.

I suspect in weeks/months down the line, Tarantino’s involvement may diminish to just “story idea by”, if that.

TUP

If QT successfully releases his new film, I think he’ll be fine. Uma did come out to defend him a bit.

Jonboc

Great to hear the growing optimism from the cast After watching the amazing new trailer for neflix’s new Lost in Space series, and now, more buzz about new Trek…despite the huge misfire that is Discovery, I just might get my fun and exciting science fiction fix after all!

USSEXETER

Lost In Space had so much potential and Guy Williams was supposed to be the star of the show. Then they made the dreadful mistake of trying to be campy like Batman, and the show became the Dr. Smith, Will Robinson, & the Robot show, UGH!! As a child watching reruns in the 1970’s I knew it was crap, along with villainous carrots, lol. Lost In Space did one thing for me though, it made me realize it was shite and I found Star Trek!

Marja

Lost In Space did one thing for me though, it made me realize it was shite and I found Star Trek!

Ditto, Exeter. Thank god for the early local syndication. I found Trek in ’67 but got repeat viewings after the end of the NBC broadcasts. Yay Star Trek. Thoughtful stuff.

Marja

If it’s anything like the ’60s version, I won’t be watching. Even at age eight I thought it was a stupid show.

TUP

The concept of a “lost in space” sounds amazing on paper. I never watched the old show (too young lol) but I saw the film and while I liked the cast, the thing about the premise that doesnt interest me is the family.

I love space travel though. And when we talk about the idea of a Mars trip as a one way venture and would you do that, its really intriguing. So if you take a long range or deep space assignment that goes off the rails and is lost, its really interesting. But not kids and whatever.

You could explore relationships between a crew when they think they will never be home. They become a family. But the family aspect…meh. But Ill watch this show to see if its good.

Spiked Canon

can you imagine if Disco didn’t misfire? Well since it was the number one streamed show in the world, I can’t imagine anything different.

Kirok

Didn’t it?

DeanH

Yeah, even as a fan of Discovery I was surprised to see the finale totally trounced not just the digital streamed shows but the network shows as well. Hopefully that is a sign it will be around for many years to come.

JRT!

But STD WAS fun and exciting! lol. Hope LiS is good,it certainly LOOKS good.

Kirok

Let’s hope that Lost in Space is the next BSG. The next terrible show that gets remade into something good.

Spock Jenkins

I hope Bill Mumy gets a cameo in ‘Lost in Space’ – such an injustice that he did not get to portray the grown-up time-dispaced version of Will Robinson in the movie – the role was clearly written to have him in that part.

Marja

Hee! I keep reading that as “Bill Murray”
Now that might be worth tuning in for ;^)

Jonboc

I’m with you there. He was the perfect choice for the grown Will. Bill Mumy is behind the new series 100%, hopefully he has a cameo somewhere in there.

Jason Kirk

My friends and I believe that William Shatner can return to the role of Kirk, and that’s how it can be done! Sorry for my English. If in 2009 Spock got into the past and created an alternative reality, then in the new reality, the old Kirk might return from its future. He can take the genesis to restore Vulcan, or something like that. There are a couple of things that we would like to see in the new film:
– Cameo of the old actors
– Familiar aliens
– More Klingons (but not as in Discovery)
– Red uniforms

TUP

I generally think filmmakers would resist relying on elements that require viewers to be overly invested in Trek lore. A film that feels like a sequel to the TOS films is probably a non-starter for that reason.

Phil

Who’s this ‘we’ of which you speak? Are you writing the script?

Marja

Apparently THEY are that YUUUGE contingent of True Trek fans.
Heh.

Spock Jenkins

Love Karl Urban. Actors are always the last to know however. As “hopeful” as Karl Urban may be, nothing has officially been green lit yet, so best not to hold our collective breaths just yet.

JED

Love the fact that Karl does all he can to push for a new Movie!

DataMat

Honestly, Star Wars stole the thunder from the J.J franchise. If they do another then it will have to be something different to Star Wars. You can’t pretend to be Star Wars when the real thing is actually being done. That is silly and utterly pointless. I’d imagine Tarantino has been taped for the next film because of precisely this point I make. He will do something different, grittier and more adult compared with what you get with Star Wars, which is essentially a family space opera-fantasy-fairytale.

Marja

Cynically speaking, I think JJ’s Trek movies were his audition for Star Wars.

Tiger2

People say this all the time but in reality there was NO talk of bringing back Star Wars until years after the first Kelvin film was made. Even George Lucas said he didn’t consider making another film until 2011 and Disney of course bought it in 2012. Abrams was just another filmmaker who grew up on SW and had a chance to make something close to it with Star Trek. In fact, while I don’t think anyone will outright say it, my guess is he pitched his Star Trek film as feeling like Star Wars and what got Paramount excited to do it.

But I don’t think he ever thought he would have a chance to do SW and he did originally turn down Episode 7. I know people are probably skeptical of that story but I believe him because he probably thought of the tremendous pressure of being the first one out of the gate to redo Star Wars. It was going to be successful no matter what but if fans truly hated it he probably couldn’t get over it. I think Rian Johnson is sadly in that boat now.

TUP

I have no doubt he pitched it that way. Didnt he publicly say Star Trek needed to be more like Star Wars? The biggest issue with JJ was that he went into Star Trek thinking it was broken and needing to be fixed. He didnt respect what it was.

TUP

I think JJ didnt think he’d get Star Wars so tried to make Trek into Wars. He didnt respect Star Trek and didnt take the time to learn about it. Im not sure it was a malicious disrespect. I think the team he assembled came across as devout Trekkies to the extent JJ felt comfortable trusting them. He shouldn’t have.

DeanH

Wow great news on both fronts. I assume everything is in limbo because of the rumored reunion of CBS and Viacom is holding things up but hopefully the powers that be will continue with the story arc. I think the new Enterprise cast is fantastic and maybe that will open the door for Quinto and the others to do occasional cameos on Discovery just like Nimoy, Doohan and Kelly did on TNG – although time and aging might make that difficult.

Curious Cadet

@DeanH — nah, Viacom/CBS merger is too far away to affect another Trek. However, there might be some synergy with Paramount actually cooperating with CBS since they actually own the franchise. Abrams and the previous Paramount regime tried to go their own way from CBS, creating their own franchise, rather than respect CBS and their wishes as the owner. Paramount’s deal with Abrams means an expensive 4th movie, with little gurantee of success, as the box office since ST09 has been trending in the opposite direction compared to investment. Retooling with another producer removes that aspect of making the films, while coming up with a new approach that might have more traction with audiences. In the meantime it gives CBS some breathing room to bring the franchise back to television. In advance of any rumored merger between Viacom and CBS, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a partnership between CBS and Paramount to co-develop concepts for box office and small screen, in order to unify the franchise for maximum effect. Time will tell whether they continue down the same destructive path, or take a smarter approach.

TUP

I was thinking that same thing Curious.

If Paramount and CBS worked together, would elements created for a feature film (CGI, Costumes etc) be easily utilized on TV? It would be a way to get some big buck designs for a TV show budget.

DeanH

Thanks for the info, yeah eventually merging the franchises is going to be a tricky one since they are in alternate timelines. We shall see how it all plays out.

TUP

If they merge, I doubt anyone would give much thought to the KT. Its not at the fore of the public anyway. They’d simply create movies in the Prime timeline. They wont even have to say its prime…its prime because its star trek. The KT will be the weird thing no one talks about.

Marja

They’ll probably rejoin the timestreams through some unlikely device, heh!

Trex

Here’s hoping!!!!

Old Geek Sci FI Fan

I wish they would just let Mr. Shatner do a Trek film. He’s not getting any younger and from what I can see works very hard every day and is out there doing projects. No he is not to old to play Kirk. This is science fiction and anything can be written. It was tuff to see his demise in generations. Yes there is the new series on CBS and yes we have has the (3) Kelvin timeline films, but i still think letting Mr. Shatner back in would bring people into theaters if done well and the other new series and movies not interfere with. Say what you all will but this fan would still love to see him one last grand time on the big screen! As some one once said its a big galaxy and there a lot of stories out there!

El Chup

I felt that the Kelvinverse finally became Star Trek with Beyond. I would be sad if this crew were now put out to pasture as I feel they have only really joined the spirit of Trek with Beyond and deserve a chance to build on that, even if it’s Tarantino’s movie. For me, Beyond was better Trek than Discovery and I say that as someone who was lukewarm on Trek 09 and utterly despised Into Darkness.

Tiger2

I actually don’t disagree, the problem was the general audience didn’t seem to feel that way about the film and why it bombed. For all the hate talk about STID, it actually retained its audience pretty well week to week meaning the word of mouth didn’t kill it. But with Beyond it dropped a LOT week to week meaning it didn’t inspire a lot of other people to watch it.

So Paramount is in this very strange situation. On one hand the fans all seem to suggest Beyond was the one that got it right, on the other most didn’t seem to care enough to go see it for themselves. Or maybe that it didn’t attract enough of the casual audience which is again is a big problem if true.

Paul

Beyond was very good the current actors deserve another movie at least to build on that momentum. Paramount do not seem to want to expand the Star Trek movie franchise when almost every other major studio is creating tentpoles & sub franchises around their main franchises Paramount are not doing anything except sit on valuable IP!! If Paramount wanted to sell the Trek movie franchise I bet the other studios would line up to pay billions for it!! in the right studios hands its pure box office gold!!!

Tiger2

Actually I don’t think it works that way. The way I read it, Paramount doesn’t own the brand, CBS now does (although they are both owned by a bigger company) but Paramount can’t ‘sell’ the movie franchise only CBS can. And my guess is thats probably the other issue and because they don’t own the franchise they don’t make the money off of it wholesales like the merchandise, Blu Ray, etc. They earn money but just a very sliver of the pie. CBS is the one that rakes it in with the merchandising, streaming deals, etc. In all honesty CBS didn’t even need to make another show because they probably make so much money off the reruns of all the other shows. If it wasn’t for AA and trying to find a way to promote that, I doubt there would even be a show now. As for Paramount I guess the motivation to make Trek into a bigger cinematic universe like the others is also probably less because we don’t know exactly how much of the brand they can use? Clearly they can use old characters but are they allowed to make films in the prime universe again? If so can they use characters from the shows? Its hard to say unless we know the deal between them which admittedly we know very little of. But since its technically under the same company they probably get more leeway to make what they want unlike Sony who can make Spider Man… Read more »

TUP

Someone smarter can explain it as its complicated but CBS owns the original IP. Paramount owns the film series and the right to make more films. But they have to license the IP from CBS to do so.

Its part of the motive for the KT – Bad Robot wanted to create a new universe that they’d have more control over and control all the derivatives of.

Tiger2

Yeah and thats what I mean though, they don’t have the incentive to make this expansive universe if A. They don’t reap the rewards from it or have complete control if they set it in the prime universe and B. That the KT universe doesn’t seem compelling enough since its been around for 8 years and yet only have 3 films. They don’t seem all that motivated to do much with that universe outside of spitting a movie out every few years. But there doesn’t seem to be any drive to make spin offs from it. I’m guessing they just don’t make enough with external revenue like merchandising which is the other problem.

Phil

Well, actually, there were no details at all here, just wishful thinking on Urban’s part. QT’s current project will tie him up through August 2019, so how, exactly does this get a new Trek movie through pre-production and into principle photography within a year? Particularly considering there’s no script, and no commitment from Paramount?

TUP

QT isnt writing the script, someone else is. Its based on a story by QT. So realistically, they could get pretty far in the process before deciding whether QT can direct or not. Even if he cant, they could still go ahead with QT’s story.

Phil

Perhaps, but that only has potential that’s fraught with drama. Lets say Paramount loves it, and it’s a story that can be shot on the backlot with some CGI thrown in of the good ship Enterprise…but they want to start next week. Quintin, we’ll give you producer and story credit, and Ron Howard wants to direct. It might go off without a hitch, it could be fertile ground for creative differences. Neither of us really know the personalities involved, but in consideration that it’s well reported that studios are pretty risk adverse today, I don’t think someone a Paramount would roll the dice on that unless they had their financial backsides very well covered.

TUP

I dont think its remotely critical that QT directs. Of course, if Paramounts greenlights Q’s story, they should want him to direct. But its not like Q hasnt written other projects that he didnt direct.

Phil

Time will tell. Personally, I’m not feeling a lot of warm fuzzys that Paramount is hot to go on this, QT’s PR issues aside. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but in the traditional sense another Trek feature is years away.

Now, just for giggles, how do you suppose it would be received if JJ did slip one in under the radar, like the Cloverfield straight to Netflicks feature? Lets assume it’s a quality, character driven piece, but on a budget. Does the novelty of a Trek Novella satisfy demand for content, or is it just another reason to gripe about where the big, epic films are?

Paul

So in other words he HOPES but knows as much as we do about which cast will be used. I think Tarantino’s R rated Trek is a side project not the main Trek movie being considered. If Beyond could not turn a profit (due to poor PR campaign & the wrong release date) an R rated movie will have even less chance.

TUP

If I recall, the only story being worked on that we know is QT’s. And JJ is involved so its not like a wild shot in the dark. Its very far from greenlit, but the idea was intriguing enough that JJ was willing to look at it.

Once the script is done, I’d guess JJ and Paramount will look at it and decide if its worth continuing or not. If not, JJ likely turns back to his original idea. Or they all go their separate ways.

I really don’t mean this in a bad way but does anybody think that QT would want to direct any of the current actors?? Really…. Don’t see it happening. Yes maybe a completely different cast and crew.

Phil

You didn’t see Hell or High Water, did you?

TUP

I could see him being interested in directing Shatner and Stewart!

Tom

Been hearing about Shatner since Enterprise, 3 JJ movies and Disco
Just do it already!!

Tiger2

Its never going to happen. Shatner had his time. There seems to be no real appetite to have him back. The last time was Generations and that was to kill him off.

TUP

No appetite? He was written into 2009. He was in Orci’s rejected Trek 3 story. There were a couple of stories and pitch meetings about him for Enterprise. And Fuller said he’s be open to using him on Discovery.

Shatner has always been considered for Star Trek roles.

Tiger2

I mean from Paramount/CBS who end of the day has to approve the guy of being there. I think the filmmakers would like him but even they know there are a lot of problems with it and why his scene was written out in the 09 film. But I don’t think the studio has any interest in having Shatner back which is the real hang up. They had four shows and six films since they killed him, if they really wanted him, he would’ve showed up long ago.

Tom

i think there is definitely some interest and always buzz created. It just seems like for whatever reason they can’t finalize an idea and agree to make it happen.

TUP

The biggest buzz they had after STID was the leak about Shatner being in Orci’s script.

Gary 8.5

The Tarantino film isn’t a done deal.

Michael Conrad

I wish they would make an actual science fiction movie, using Star Trek as the vehicle. This whole idea that there has to be a villain, and there has to be multiple action sequences is nonsense. Besides, this strategy doesn’t seem to be working out so well. While Star Trek 2009 did well, the subsequent movies have dived in the box office. Sure, I think most of us agree that Beyond was a big improvement over Into Darkness, but it wasn’t necessarily better than 2009. Beyond felt like a Star Trek episode, which is to it’s credit; however, it’s also why I haven’t felt drawn to watch it since seeing it twice in the theatres.

It would be really nice to see Star Trek return to its true sci-fi roots. Star Trek at its best has a spooky, Twilight Zone, feel to it. I think TWOK, although not super sci-fi orientated in concept, kinda got that spooky vibe.

I guess I’m just saying that Paramount should take a chance with the Star Trek in the movies. Make it big, but without the villain of the week. Isn’t it about time we faced the facts? There’s never going to be a better villain than Khan. Heck, they even tried Khan again and failed. It’s time for a new strategy.

TUP

I think Beyond sucked but in a different way to STID. The stakes were low. The film seemed “small”. Kirk’s issues seemed forced. Spock laughing was ridiculous. Spock/Uhura came across forced and uninteresting. It was just somewhat boring.

DLope67

Karl Urban looking a bit like Johnathan Frakes in this pic