Noah Hawley Star Trek Movie Paused, Paramount Still Considering ‘Beyond’ Sequel With Chris Hemsworth

Less than a year after their latest Star Trek project was announced, it looks like Paramount is changing course on the future of the film franchise, again.

Paramount weighing their options for Star Trek’s future

In an exclusive, Deadline reports that Paramount Pictures has “put a pause” on the Star Trek film in development, which was to be written and directed by Fargo‘s Noah Hawley. Both The Hollywood Reporter and Variety have followed up with the same reporting.

Emma Watts, who was recently brought in from Fox to head up Paramount’s Motion Picture Group, is reported to be “in the process of figuring out which way to go” for the Trek film franchise. According to the report, Watts is also considering the Quentin Tarantino Trek project (with a script already written by Mark L. Smith), and the Star Trek Beyond follow-up that was to be directed by S.J. Clarkson before salary negotiations with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth put that project on hold in 2018.

Tarantino Trek tied to iconic TOS episode

According to Deadline, the Hawley Trek film would bring in a new cast for a story about a deadly virus, a storyline that may now be less appealing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Variety’s reporting says Hawley’s film would have brought back the Kelvin crew headed by Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, and Zoe Saldana. And even though Tarantino dropped out as a potential director, Deadline says the project based on his pitch is “still viable.” The brief description provided for that project sounds like it’s related to the TOS episode “A Piece of the Action.”

Spock and Kirk in TOS episode “A Piece of the Action”

Getting Trek right is a Paramount “priority”

All the trade reports agree that Watts is weighing these three options for Star Trek’s future, with the Hawley project being moved to the back burner. According to Deadline, Paramount is said to be giving Star Trek “top priority,” with ViacomCBS wanting to “make sure they get it right.” Deadline indicates that the Beyond follow-up involving time travel and Chris Pine’s Kirk meeting up with his father (Chris Hemsworth) may now have the “cleanest path forward.”  The other Trek projects are said to possibly serve better as “Logan-like spinoffs when the core franchise has been revitalized.”

Chris Hemsworth in 2009’s Star Trek

This is a developing story, so stay tuned for more updates.


Keep up with all the Star Trek movie news here at TrekMovie.com.

Subscribe
Notify me of
241 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yawn. I don’t really care too much for the Kirk dad idea. Take some risks, Paramount!

No kiddddding. What a snooze fest. “We’re going to bring back a bit player because he became really famous after” is not a very compelling pitch.

you’ve read the script? wow man… dish some dirt…

I wouldn’t mind mind a Kirk’s dad story line – especially if they can pull in some of the plot elements of various books that have been released. What I REALLY don’t wanna see is a ‘George Kirk goes to the future and teams up with his son Jim’ story

Hemsworth didn’t like the script; that’s why he passed. How does Paramount get past that problem?

How about Kirks dad from the Mirror Universe – in command of the Mirror Enterprise…?

it’s like the moose head from Fawlty Towers!

IT’S UP! It’s down again.

Tarantino Trek could have Quentin in a producer capacity

I’m expecting the next Trek movie to involve Kurtzman and co now viacomCBS are together again.

At this point it would be interesting to see virtually anything Trek on the big screen. I’m in.

The Hemsworth project seems the most appealing. Bring back the father/son pathos that made Trek 09 work for people who are not hardcore fans.

Not going to happen. If Paramount didn’t want to pay them what they were worth in 2018.they really aren’t going to want to pay them what they are worth in 2022.

I don’t know if Chris Pine price is any higher at this point. He hasn’t had much going on recently besides the Netflix movie, that TNT drama series, and WW84. Hemsworth’s price is more likely to be higher though.

But also keep in mind that different people are in charge at Paramount now. And Watts may be more inclined to spend more on talent, either by making the film overall more economical, or spending a little more, if they can figure out how to increase international appeal.

Pine keeps busy. We’re also back to square one on this project, in more ways then one. If something is greenlit soon (a very big if), it’s eight years between Trek movies. Whatever story they settle on, for all practical purposes, it will be a reboot, regardless of the cast they use.

I can’t tell if you’re joking – you’re saying he hasn’t got much going on besides a Netflix movie, a Television series, plus a Blockbuster DC movie??

‘kay.

Different management structure, different sensibilities. I don’t think salaries will be a factor this time out.

Kirk has been a starship captain for years now, isn’t he getting a bit long in the tooth to still be having Daddy issues?

The time travel story idea is okay, if not particularly original. If they go that route, I hope it isn’t just another retread. Come up with something original. They’ve had four years to come up with something fresh.

I feel like the daddy angst is been there done that. Of course, if they do something crazy like make Hemsworth Locutus of Borg and Pine has to to kill him, I’m there!

How about killing off the entire main cast!

I think that would qualify as a fresh idea. I’d even consider paying to see that movie. Unless JJ directed it. Good lord that guy’s an abysmal storyteller.

Family trauma can carry into any age – doesn’t matter how old one is.

Indeed. Those themes drove the Iron Man franchise and Downy was in his forties/fifties.

Two words: development. hell.

I told you all this, months ago. You’re welcome.

Last edited 1 month ago by Phil

I am glad that the Tarantino script is still a possibility.

It’s not.

How do you know that?

The same way I knew the Hawley production was dead – I paid attention to what was actually being said. The QT project never got past the studio spending a few bucks on a script that didn’t pass the sniff test. That’s it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Phil

That and it sounds like something that should be an episode, not a movie with mass appeal. It just sounds like more unneeded nostalgia.

It is, but without Tarantino it won’t sell.
So it is highly unlikely.

At least we are getting new Star Trek television shows every year. I don’t care about the movies anymore.

I’m there with you at this point. Star Trek has always been better suited to the small screen.

I also don’t care about the movies Faze ninja.

Same.

Same, brothers.

me too!

At this point, I have zero desire to revisit the JJ-verse at all.

Same here. Okay, to be fair, I had no desire for an alternate universe to begin with, and nothing that’s happened since has changed my mind.

Well, there’s one thing I love about the KT movies: Giacchino’s score! If they get him for Strange New Worlds, I’d be happy to let the KT rest in peace.

Giacchino did some work for the Enterprise-related Short Treks so I really wonder whether he’ll do the score for the entire show. If so, I’d be more than delighted…

Giacchino only scored one Short Trek that he also directed.. He mentored several young composers who did the other Short Treks. What it does show is that there’s some relationship between him and Secret Hideout. However, he hasn’t scored a full TV show since Fringe (2013). He’s keeping busy doing movies. Maybe they’ll go with one of the new composers and Giacchino can keep that consulting role.

I looked at some of the articles about the first movie a week ago here out of sheer boredom and what a difference a decade makes. People treated it like it was definitive Star Trek that was going to represent the future of Star Trek from that point on.

Cut to 2019 and people seem genuinely offended that the Romulus destruction element of the first one would even be referenced in Picard because they wanted to pretend the film was no longer canon. It’s just prove we Trek fans are very, very fickle. ;)

They shouldn’t move forward with these type of announcements. The waiting plus the back and forward is not respectful to the Fans.

I have said this before, I personally don’t like the Tarantino idea. The story may be fine, but gore and swearing, no thank you. Will be disruptive to the franchise…50 years of decent shows and movies.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jay

You think the powers that be respect the fans?? lollll…what alternate universe do you live in

I don’t think Paramount worries about hard core fans because we all have a different take on what Trek is (or isn’t) I’ll say it again: It’s show BUSINESS, folks. It’s about putting bums in the seats when theatres reopen. I suspect they’ll pay salaries be cause it’s the BIG picture of Trek, now. All the money goes into the same pot and Pine’s demands may not see so unreasonable against Treks total revenue. If the suits think that getting a Marvel juggernaut will drive the box office? Go Daddy Issues!!!

“not respectful to the Fans”

Oh, puh-leeeeeze. So many Comic Book Guy types.

Fix the timeline, prevent the destruction of Romulus and Vulcan, prevent Pike’s death, make Nero a hero instead of a villain, and show the scenes that were edited out of Spock’s birth & the Klingon prison. But of course need to find an actor that looks like Anton Yelchin to play Chekov. Bring back the Nurse Chapel character. Also would love to see the addition of Jaylah to the crew, as well as bringing back Carol Marcus pregnant with Kirk’s son, LOL.

Just say Chekov is off at command school (what Saavik was doing in Wrath of Khan) and be done with it. Bring in Kyle, Riley or LaSalle to sit at the Navigation station as a nod to TOS.

Last edited 1 month ago by Thorny

They could also reuse footage that wasn’t shown, and maybe overdub them to fit into the new story. Or as good as CGI is today create a virtual character

They’re trying to spend less money, not more. A CGI character would cost so much $$$$

I detect just enough snark in the original post to suspect that Chekov’s status isn’t an actual issue. In elapsed time, best case, there will be eight years between movies. You can just ignore Chekov, and few are likely to care.

I don’t see that happening. They’ll give him some kind of send off like Nimoy’s Spock in Beyond.

I don’t really see the point. The character wasn’t really that integral to the stories or had any real character arc himself. He was just basically there like the original Chekhov. I think they can just say he got promoted to another ship or something.

Just replace Chekov with Jaylah. Done!

I agree. Just say Chekov got promoted and is on another ship and definitely get Jaylah on board. She is great.

I agree, liked Jaylah

He can be on the Reliant. That works perfectly. If there happens to be unused footage of him that makes for a fitting cameo, that’s lovely, but I think this is the best option. It’s an alternate universe where technology has diverged and Vulcan and Amanda have been wiped out, it’s okay for Chekov to move on.

Oh, man… a running gag about Chekov being off somewhere would be pretty morbid. I could see something like that working in a Monty Python movie (when they reunited on stage after Graham Chapman’s death, they had an urn sitting in the sixth seat), but I’d be super impressed if the JJ-Trek fans appreciated something like that.

Monty Python fan here, Cygnus. They irony would be a bit lost (and quite possibly a bit tone deaf), though, with so many characters franchise wide having passed in the last couple of years.

Life Happens. I think you open the movie with a fast clip of Eton and a few lines on the screen saying he had passed and we all grieve his loss and we know we can’t replace him but only lend his seat on the bridge to someone else who will not play Checkov. To me this is dignity. No worming your way out or around or replacement. Just the truth. The painful truth.

Why would it be have to be a running gag? Just have a throwaway line where Kirk needs something fast (like some numbers being crunched) and have him say “fine time for Chekov to be at Command School…”

If there is another movie after this one (should it happen), we’d be moving into the time frame of Star Trek: The Motion Picture with everyone having gone their separate ways anyway and Kirk having to “get the old gang together”. Chekov not being available would be easy to explain (“he’s first officer on the Reliant now, Terrell wouldn’t give him up”.)

It would become a running gag, albeit not intentionally, when successive movies keep offering up excuses for Chekov’s absence while the audience knows perfectly well that Chekov is absent because the actor who played him is deceased. It would be the inverse of the running gag in the TNG movies where a novel explanation for Worf’s presence on the Enterprise is offered at the beginning of each movie (Worf having been transferred to DS9 in Trek TV). It could easily come across like the studio is downplaying the contributions of the deceased actor. The studio would effectively be writing Chekov out of the franchise, and I don’t think the fans would appreciate it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Cygnus-X1

I don’t know that we’d love a recast either.

“But of course need to find an actor that looks like Anton Yelchin to play Chekov.”

CHRIS COLFER!

Ew. Has possibly one of the most annoying voices in Hollywood.

“Fixing” problems with the 2009 movie and “Into Darkness” is going to be the filmmakers’ last priority.

Plus, it’s been 7 years since “Into Darkness.” If alt-Kirk hooked up with alt-Carol around the time of that movie, little alt-David should be in second grade by now.

7 years in our real life timeline wouldn’t necessarily be 7 years in the Trek timeline… after all it is science fiction, not fact, so it had limitless possibilities as to how to create a different storyline

Except that the actors are aging even if the characters aren’t. TMP was supposed to be 2 1/2 years after the five year mission, but Kirk and Scotty both looked the ten years older that they really were. That why Wrath of Khan jumped seven-ish years past ST:TMP instead of the 2 1/2 it was in the real world.

The Tarantino project is most exciting to me.

Word.

Are we still talking about this? Time to move on, I think. Personally I consider the Kelvin timeline a creative failure and now that CBS and Viacom are kissing and making up I think it’s time that we just scrap this idea and retool the Star Trek films series as part of the current expanding Star Trek universe.

Paramount wants the visibility, market share, profits and industry respect that come when the franchise appeals to more than just us fans, though. Trek movies need to be pretty cheap if they are only going to cater to the fandom niche. Typically the Trek movies grossed about $75 million each time, with some outliers, even that’s with a percentage of casual moviegoers in the mix, and a so-so foreign haul on top of that. With inflation, that’s just a sleeper hit at best today. Fine by me, but hard to expect a giant corporation to rest on those laurels.

Trek movies are different beasts and have been since the beginning, and especially since Khan, and if anything get criticized when they are too like the TV series (hello Insurrection). Most of the films are all about evil villains’ plots with huge stakes and action set pieces. That hardly describes the plot of a typical Trek episode, and it’s no wonder Roddenberry said The Voyage Home was his favorite film. Try capturing that lightning in a bottle each time out.

I don’t love them (particularly Into Darkness,) but the JJ films managed to make this a $300-$400 million franchise less than 7 years after Nemesis tanked, and that’s incredible. Yes, I wish we had a movie franchise with a direct connection to the TV stuff being done so there could be synergy like we had before but on the scale of Marvel. Yes, I wish the films were smarter. Still, if they can get the budgets under control, there’s a huge audience they’d be dumb to not try to squeeze into theaters for a few more films (when that’s a thing again, of course). Risking it all on say, Strange New Worlds: The Movie just doesn’t make sense.

I’m well aware of the economics of it and very familiar with the box office hauls. Note I did not say that Kelvin Trek was a commercial failure — although I do estimate them as having underperformed and have all of my own theories as to why that I’m sure many nerds share. Connecting the Paramount Star Trek films with CBS-AA (and whatever it is to become) and the expanding ST universe is good business. The films can have broad appeal and still be more directly relevant to fandom. Keeping the two separate (TV universe and film universe) has already proven (in my opinion) ineffective. Now that my Star Trek appetite is being satiated on CBS-AA I personally would prefer Paramount take a hard pause, reconsider the business of Star Trek as a global franchise and begin again.

And resetting the films by trying to capture lightning in a bottle again is not going to be their favorite option, they are all about the path of least resistance as well as the path to making more money, not less. Creative fulfillment is a distant priority after that.

They entertained ideas from two hot shot creatives, but nothing from the Prime universe has yielded big box office since 1996 and there are no obvious threads in All Access to pull for another $300 million blockbuster. They want the franchise to be a big hitter because that’s the only thing studios care about now, and the JJ way is the only way they’ve managed to get there with Trek. I agree about the creative side of things and that to improve that they need to reset, but that’s not realistic to expect so I don’t really bring it up.

I don’t think they’ve captured lightning in a bottle and I think Abrams has a fledgling brand particularly since Rise of Skywalker. I also think that you’re looking at the business of Star Trek films from five years ago terms. The broad appeal philosophy doesn’t really apply anymore. Modern audiences have accepted expanded universes and frankly I think want expanded universes. Star Trek doesn’t get big by becoming smaller which is the effect of what you’re suggesting. The nature of TV and streaming and the new standard that Marvel has created for running franchises like a cohesive business has changed the game. Paramount has not treated the modern film series very seriously, with the 5 years between films and giving full control to Bad Robot. The Kelvin timeline is now at odds with the prime timeline which is getting the majority of the attention and investment at the moment. So we’re now looking forward to different incarnations of prime timeline Star Trek running year round only to see The Kelvin timeline confuse casual audience goers once every five years. The currently film series is frankly old now and I think has ended up being ineffective outside of reminding general audiences that Star Trek still exists every couple of years — which I’m grateful for. As for the business of the modern films, Paramount made some money on the movies, except when they didn’t — but the merchandising of the property didn’t leave a big footprint and they were unable to expand past the series. You mention the “thread” to All Access — just because there’s no apparent thread to you now doesn’t mean that there isn’t a treasure trove of possibilities. At the very least, it would benefit Star Trek as a franchise if it all took place in one cohesive universe that directs attention to the films and back to the old shows and ultimately to the app. In short, if they want to bring this crew out for one more outing — fine. I think it would prove pointless and yield an insufficient ROI. I think they’re better off shelving the Kelvin timeline, taking a year or two off to work alongside All Access and figure out where Star Trek should boldly go on the big screen next and how it fits into the broader universe. If I were in charge anyway, that would be my approach.

My worry is that All Access is too niche. I’ve no idea if Discovery and Picard are doing gangbusters overseas, but being big hits for an also-ran streaming service is not that different from Voyager being the top drama on UPN or DS9 usually being the top first run syndicated drama. It’s big fish in a little pond-type stuff.

I don’t think you’re wrong that they need to try something to connect the movies and All Access shows, but I keep thinking back to how Star Trek has been a mid-tier movie franchise with niche appeal since 1989. There’s a great danger that this happens again if they start fresh and cut JJ Trek loose.

Again, Bad Robot turned Star Trek into a $350+ million per movie franchise only 7 years after Nemesis bombed with under $70 million worldwide. Even with inflation, that’s better than TMP or TWOK or TVH. To me that’s lightning in a bottle, despite the actual ROI not being great. The PR certainly has been.

There’s nothing obviously popular-enough that’s aching for the movie treatment in the All-Access properties besides the universe in general, and the movies have never been used to introduce a totally new premise and cast of characters. It’s a big risk, whereas another JJ film is less of one, even if it is kicking the prospect of synergy down the road.

Good points, well made.

You as well!

The current pandemic shutdown and economic downturn affecting all media companies will likely put a downward force on all movie budgets and actor salaries. I’m sure as the months drag on actors will be lowering their asking price for future roles which now are being scheduled for 2022+. Other factors are the unknown economic future of movie theaters and VOD revenue potential limiting future movie budgets.

Last edited 1 month ago by Phil

Very likely. I wonder if the JJ Trek script is really that good though to justify how it keeps popping up in lieu of pitches for other scripts with that cast. Everyone seems to like Chris Hemsworth, but he’s not a big draw outside of Marvel. Obviously his agent didn’t like hearing that.

My guess: The Hemsworth script is the “safest” one in that it follows in the footsteps of the previous 3 movies. Yes, those movies weren’t super successful but they were moderate successes. And if Paramount could do another boxoffice haul like Into Darkness on a lower budget that would be a start. On the other hand, both the Tarantino pitch and Hawley’s script seem to be a bigger departure from the previous movies which makes them a bigger risk.

If Beyond had cost $140 million instead of $180 million, there would have been little hesitation in greenlgihting a fourth film. For all he did to reboot Trek successfully as a blockbuster franchise, Abrams did a lot of self-harm by overspending to do it. The scripts need to be cleverer and not rely on CGI and big spending to wow the audience. They at least made the characters fresh and likable once again, and there’s still an audience investment in these characters’ relationships. That’s more than half the battle already.

Paramount has a viable film franchise with Star Trek and with the right script it’s highly lucrative to have Star Trek on television and in theaters. It’s worked in the past, it will likely work again in the future.

But you’d still be looking at enticing people with a flashy cast and probably a big budget – ViacomCBS wants to tout that they are maintaining a $300 million+ franchise, its not exciting to their shareholders if it goes back to costing $75 million and maybe grossing $150 million. It would confirm the franchise’s status as a bit player rather than a major one. Creatively, that could be wonderful for us, but it’s a little silly to talk about too much because Paramount would never reset their sights like that.

It’s not impossible that they can make a sub-$100 million film with a no name cast set in the Prime universe and then gross big money, but again, that’s a huge risk and it looks like they already soured on their investments in Tarantino and Hawley. As appealing as Marvel has made shared universes again, the path of least resistance is still JJ Trek. Paramount’s ideal scenario is to get that back on track with budgets under control and similar reviews to the last films (critics liked Into Darkness, god knows why). They’re clearly tired of waiting to start something from scratch that might not work.

If you don’t want to discuss it, fine. But others are welcome to. YOU move on.

Calm down. I was talking about paramount and their inability to shit or get off the pot. I like talking about Star Trek. I particularly like talking about the business of Star Trek. I’m allowed to participate in the conversation also.

this is great news… the most important news with all this is that the new paramount chief wants to get it right… doesn’t matter if trek fans will agree or disagree with which project first… (we all know you’re gonna disagree) but the fact there is a desire to look ahead and not do it piecemeal one film at a time is exciting. maybe there will be some type of direction to the franchise on the big screen… even when berman and with TOS movies it seemed a bit non-directional…

tom riker, I’m totally on board with ViacomCBS and CBS being strategic about this, doing their long term market research and positioning and getting it right. That is good news.

They also need to contract a director and writer that understands the franchise and can respect whatever strategic vision they land on, rather than just letting them do whatever fits their personal vision. Nemesis and the JJ Trek films more than demonstrate that it’s not a successful long run approach.

In the meantime, I’m pretty fatigued with the cycling movie hype. I’d like to know more when the dust settles.

Honestly, I’d just like some cinematic features that some of my family would be willing to see with me. I won’t go out to see it in a theatre by myself, but Paramount senior management have deep thinking to do to come up with a mass product. It’s not obvious what that could be in a post-COVID market.

Of our young teens, only one was willing to watch the complete Star Trek 2009, but balked at the rest of JJ Trek – and we had the DVDs in the house for months because we got them out just before lockdown. The TOS and TNG movie collections got played through with a some repeats before we had to return them recently.

Beyond the personal perspective, I can’t see Trek having a great ROI if it can’t pull in across demographics from older kids through to older fans my in-laws age.

Honestly, it just sounds like they have no idea what they want to do with this franchise considering its been four years, three scripts (that we know of) and they are no closer to green lighting a film because they are probably afraid all the ideas they have now will bomb.

Sure she wants to get it right, the point is they still have no clue what that is four years on. It’s just odd where the movie franchise has ended up at this point.

Paramount have not really had a clue what to do ever since First Contact came out. They botched Insurrection by allowing too many cooks in the kitchen and did it all again with Nemesis only that time made a series of incredibly stupid decisions such as hiring a poorly qualified director and releasing the film in the most ludicrous timeslot of its year.

Roll onto the JJ Trek movie and they then decide to do a reboot and throw tons of money at it hoping the young people will somehow grasp onto it and think Trek is Cool and not anymore Nerdy I’m guessing. But in fact the film didn’t actually gross tons of money. It was successful but it wasn’t a mega hit that flatters it’s very high budget.

Into Darkness should have been a quicker sequel than 4 years IMO and the budget simply needed to he reined in a little. I get the sense that Paramount were nervous about the sequel and were not confident enough to move on from Abrams.

Then INtoDark caused a lot of mixed reception didn’t it. That probably soured the whole thing for everyone.
It made enough money to turn a healthy enough profit but it didn’t begin to pull in blockbuster numbers like other film franchises.

Beyond they again plod on with little idea what they are doing. Marketing was not good. Another disappointing villain. Budget ballooning again, which at this point is completely daft.

or there’s a new head of movies and trek is too important… that’s what it sounds like to me. but in the end it doesn’t matter what it sounds like to either one of us. whatever happens we will watch what happens from afar. not long ago many experts on this sight said trek was dead and trek movies were dead… and as usual trek’s death was announced a little premature… and what i mean by that is trek has been dead or presumed dead so many times it’s funny. 60’s to today…

The new head didn’t say anything differently then the LAST head said a few years ago when he said they considered Star Trek one of their most important properties and planned to make another Trek film. The only point being made here is yeah they all think that, the issue is they have no idea where to take it anymore even if they still consider it an important franchise. And since Paramount has very few of them compared to others, that’s not really an argument either. This clearly seems obvious.

And I have never not once ever said Trek was dead at any time. I didn’t believe that when Nemesis bombed. I didn’t believe that when Enterprise was cancelled. I didn’t believe that when Beyond bombed. And I won’t believe that if any of these shows gets prematurely cancelled. Because I actually pay attention. Even when all these other projects died, guess what, there was still people behind the scenes pitching other shows and movies. There were still networks and streaming services willing to make their own shows.

Less than six months after Enterprise was cancelled there were multiple movie pitches (which the Kelvin ideas were one of MANY and won out) and even TV show ideas still being formed by various producers and writers from Star Trek: The Beginning to Star Trek: Federation. There was no shortage of ideas or people who wants to make new Star Trek by many known names in Hollywood. It’s only a question of the people who holds the purse strings want to make more. And even then new Trek could’ve got made without them spending one nickel on it because you had others willing to license it and just make it with their own money. So Star Trek was never dead. Not even close. Dead would imply people didn’t think it was a viable franchise anymore to even want to produce something new. That hasn’t been the case since, well, ever.

So yes I have no doubt we will get another Star Trek movie, but CLEARLY Paramount is very hesitant on it still and I can’t really blame them. Sadly we DON’T know how viable a new Trek film would be right now and they can’t afford to lose money like Disney can. So we get it but it still sucks. It could happen in a year, it could happen in five; I know one will happen at some point. It’s just sad we’re nowhere close to one four years on as the TV side is now on fire with ideas.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

when a new chief comes in they re-evaluate things. you’d be stupid not to. you might be mixing up comments from jim gianopulos who runs the studio and came in 3 years ago to get the whole thing back on track which takes time and he’s been doing that… he talked a number of times of the developing trek movies… and how important trek was… not sure why you would want the opposite. but he’s still there. emma watts is working under him. she’s apparently from what i read the real deal and totally sounds like she’s gonna IMO do what fox did with x-men or planet of the apes… (she came from fox) and have a direction. it’s all good. but again… what we think correctly or incorrectly doesn’t mean a thing.we are Nostradamus making predictions of future events. she’s gonna make the call. only time will tell. but come on man… 40 years of trek in the industry i think we know there will be another one and it will be done with good intentions and like every movie ever made fingers crossed that it’s good… this is good news. personally i see more pine cast and the Tarantino one i think will be made at some point… that’s too juicy and fun… but who knows. if hawley’s trek is ever made with a new cast of characters i think that’s too new to go with as their core trek release. no studio does that. they do as a spinoff and see how it floats. every trek movie in 40 years has been an off shoot of the tv shows.

I’d love them to be bold enough to travel to another galaxy, to visit the big freeze or push the envelope of philosophical debate; why we are here and free will. Granted, not popcorn movie suitable, but there is so much potential as an alternative to ANOTHER dad/time travel sci fi trope.

i actually wanna see all 3… the hawley virus new cast of characters to me sounds exciting as something different… also probably scary to release as a feature… the piece of the action flick is probably super crazy funny and sounds so tarantino… it’s also a great ep but now i’m curious if it is inspired by that or is it a kelvin version of those events? the kirk dad son thing i’m amazed is still clanking around… but if there’s a desire to get this right, whichever they choose, it’s gonna be polished and ready to go. all trek fans win… except for the one’s who will no doubt be unhappy at all times

A Piece Of The Action?? Okay… seems reasonable. The Horizon would have discovered the planet and left the Iotians “The Book” well before the timeline split, so same basic premise applies. Hopefully, they wouldn’t muck it up the way they did with Kelvin Kahn.

Sigma Iota is easiest to turn into Planet Tarantino of course. It would basically be Pulp Fiction in space, with Kirk and Spock.

But is there a market for that??

There’s a huge Tarantino market. I think that movie would be a hit, commercially.

Looking at his box office, it’s not that huge. A QT Trek movie is a hit at a 75MM budget, not 200MM.

It doesn’t do anything for me personally. It sounds like something you do on the TV show again. I don’t really want our first Star Trek movie in years to about revisiting some planet from TOS. If people thought STID felt redundant, well…

That’s the difference between a show and a film. A show can do this kind of stuff purely for nostalgia sake. But a film would just feel like uneeded fan service IMO.

A virus movie isn’t problematic because of the current plague. It’s problematic because how many tv episodes did we see where the Enterprise was dispatched to some planet with a cargohold of vaccines? Been there, done that.

Phil did you respond to the wrong person? My post had nothing to do with that. I was talking about the Tarantino script revisiting the mob planet idea that I think suck. It’s just more fan service people here CLAIM not to want anyway.

I don’t disagree with you that much about the virus idea either. THAT said we have certainly seen man made viruses that they couldn’t just whip up a vaccine for. The virus Section 31 gave to the Founders to end the Dominion war really comes to mind. So I’m not too worried about that angle, it’s Star Trek, they can dream up some crazy stuff if someone is purposely trying to wipe out the galaxy with it. But yeah I don’t know if its a good idea right now regardless.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I think the point I failed to make is that a plague based movie is basically Trek TV. Great (maybe) for forty five minutes, likely a financial disaster at 120 minutes.

I agree with that as well. That’s sort of the problem with most of these ideas, they are all stuff you can basically do on TV.

Event Television has pretty much blurred the lines between TV and Cinema now. Maybe the time is right to do something you’ve been a proponent of for some time and just full on remake for the big screen. Keep your continuity/prime timeline for TV but basically throw everything into the blender for the theatrical releases. Cast who you want for Kirk, Spock etc as race, gender and sexuality are no longer an issue so long as the characters align loosely to their archetypes and you’ve got more freedom for deviating from Rodenberrry’s ‘vision’.

Last edited 1 month ago by Corinthian7

Couldn’t you say that about pretty much every Star Trek movie though? I’d exclude Star Trek 2009 from that claim because the story takes place over years but pretty much every other Star Trek movie had a plot that could easily be retooled for TV. I would argue that it’s the execution of these stories that gives them either a cinematic or TV episode feel

I don’t like to be negative but APOTA cannot be a 2022 film no matter how much I would love to see a Tarantino Trek. There is no way unless they all die on the planet. no way.

Revisiting A Piece of the Action has no interest for me, Tarantino or otherwise.

It would only be interest for the most hardcore of fans and literally no one else. And I have no interest at all and speak as a hardcore fan.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

NuKirk’s Daddy issues are boring. Doesn’t anybody at Paramount have any IDEAS? I read TOS fan fiction, and fan writers have a TON of ideas; I don’t know why the pros can’t come up with something new!

Last edited 1 month ago by Corylea

Agree on Kirks Daddy, enough already

The “pros” are in the industry because of WHO they know. Talent doesn’t even come into the equation. The best writers can’t even get a meeting. Once people get in the door, they circle the wagons and keep rehashing old ideas.

I’m sorry to hear that. I don’t know enough about the industry to know if it’s true, but since studios spend gazillions of dollars on movies, it seems to me that sheer self-interest would have them looking for the best writers.

You would think that, wouldn’t you, Corylea? Based on the budgets spent, the scripts should be friggin’ brilliant! The Abrams Trek movies have been “paint-by-numbers” screenplays. Case in point; remember Yesterday’s Enterprise? Remember how good it was? Every Trek movie should be 2 hours of that quality. But, no. Simpletons get to “phone it in” and we’re expected to lap it up. Disgraceful!

It’s amazing how much was packed into 45 minutes of “Yesterday’s Enterprise.”

Yes! They couldn’t really make a movie like that, because it was the contrast between what we know SHOULD be and what we’re seeing now that makes it so poignant, and for the movies, they need a story that doesn’t require that one be a Trek fan. But “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is certainly an example of fresh and compelling writing … the kind that the Trek movies aren’t giving us.

I don’t know why actors and directors are the people who get the big bucks in Hollywood. It’s clear that there are a LOT of good actors out there; as far as I can tell, the real bottleneck in Hollywood — the thing that keeps them from making many great movies — is the writing.

I’d love to see Paramount approach a real SF writer, like Lois McMaster Bujold or Robert J. Sawyer, and ask THEM to come up with ideas for a new Trek movie.

I’d have to agree here. They had scripts in 2016, and what continues to be unspoken here is that Paramount isn’t going to dump 200MM into another break even Star Trek movie. The time travel story didn’t pass the sniff test, even Hemsworth said it sucked. Tarentino was an exercise in QT talking. A virus movie? How may times has that been a TV episode? We’re at a point now where in the Trek universe, if a deadly virus hit planet Covid-39 somewhere, the guys at Star Fleet medical would transmit the vaccine to be made on the affected planet – they would never, ever, cook up a batch, load it up on a starship, and fly it across the galaxy. If this is the best anyone can come up with, we won’t see Trek on the big screen for a while.

Ah, what did Hemsworth say, specifically?

Never mind, googled it. He’s a little more diplomatic, but it does sound like he didn’t see a lot of potential in the script.

Yeah none of these ideas seem great to me. No one seemed excited when they revealed Kirk’s dad would be back in 2016 and 2020 no one seem all that excited. The virus COULD be interesting but yeah can’t we think of something more original. I don’t really think the Tarantino idea is great at all. Sure it could fun but you can do stuff like that on a TV show. I want the movies to think BIG. Have Discovery revisit the mob planet like they did Talos IV. It just sounds like it would be another big budget episode basically.

I kind of see why they weren’t pushing for it once Tarantino said he wasn’t going to direct.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

If they’re going back in time, it really should be to save Vulcan, not to deal with Kirk’s Daddy issues. Going back in time to save Vulcan would be VERY interesting to me.

They don’t have Leonard Nimoy anymore, but I’ve read fan fiction stories where Spock Prime uses the Guardian of Forever to go back in time to save Vulcan, (and of course there’s always slingshotting around the sun). Spock Prime could have told Kirk about the Guardian of Forever before he died…

I’ve read stories where Q gives Kirk a choice about which one person he can save from Nero’s incursion, and he chooses to save Amanda (not his own father) because no one should have to lose his planet AND his mother.

I’ve read stories where Spock Prime uses the special properties of a whole bunch of places they discovered in TOS and TNG to right the wrong that Nero has done, from the androids we saw in “I, Mudd” to the Scalosian water from “Wink of an Eye” to the spores from “This Side of Paradise.”

There’s a TON of clever stuff they could do; I don’t know why they’re having such a hard time coming up with a story.

That story (and all the fan-service) would have limited appeal – Vulcan isn’t a real place.

The irony in your post is that one of the rumors for Orci’s original idea for his third film before he left was going to involve a time travel plot to save Vulcan. And somehow William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy were going to be involved. Now to be clear Orci himself said it wasn’t going to be a time travel film but I don’t think he ever ruled out it was going to deal with saving Vulcan somehow.

I liked Beyond but I still think his idea would’ve been more fun and exciting. Too bad it was considered too ‘Trek-y’ and I think that’s the problem. They desperately want a Star Trek movie but they seem afraid if it’s too Star Trek it will scare everyone accept the hardcore fans. But I think they also have to be honest with themselves they lost the initial newbies who went to see the first two Kelvin movies and proclaimed themselves Star Trek fans and now it’s just the hardcore base again watching these films. End of the day that seems to be the real issue, they want films with a bigger mass appeal but probably feel none of the ideas they have now really does that.

I assume that’s why they were so keen on having Hemsworth for the fourth film and Tarantino directing his movie because those two names could at least bring in audiences who may not care about a Star Trek film in general. Unfortunately neither stories sound all that interesting and why they are both sitting on a shelf somewhere.

And it’s probably why it’s best to focus on the shows. They can go as hardcore as they want and not have to worry too much about relying on new fans and just make things that will attract the fanbase mostly, hence Lower Decks.

I did have roles for Shatner and Nimoy. No time travel.

What’s the expiration date on that NDA before you can start talking about that, or is there a book in the works?

Thanks for chiming in Bob. I always try to be as accurate as possible on this stuff and glad you confirmed it. Can you tell us if your story had anything to do with Vulcan as well? If you can’t, no worries.

Oh cry me a river. Star Trek movies can’t get made. Seriously Paramount is running out of ideas.

Would love the Kelvin crew return, perhaps a lot older in the Motion picture era

The Kelvin crew is made up of a bunch of excellent actors, so I’d love to see them again, provided that Paramount hires GOOD writers to give them something worthwhile to do,

The first movie came out 13 years after the first season of TOS.

If a movie with the Kelvin crew comes out next year, it will be 12 years after their first appearance in 2009.

They’re basically in the movie era now.

Tarantino’s idea is lame. Continuing the Kelvin timeline is lame.

The only thing not having a Groundhog day vibe about these regular reports for years is their newest creative choice of words for shelving a project. About the movie franchise, I have to say this:

“It’s dead, Jim!”

It’s funny the biggest ‘news’ is basically just confirming another movie project has been killed off. But then tries to soften the blow by suggesting the other scripts they had for years now can still get made. Uh huh.

I know not everyone is happy with the direction of the TV production right now but imagine if we ONLY had the movies to wait for since 2016? We would be pulling our hair out about now. ;)

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

LOL I can’t do this anymore.

You know what would real breaking news be?? That they actually green lit a freaking movie by now.!Instead now we are hearing the THIRD script is basically being thrown on the shelf. But now they have another script they can decide to do absolutely nothing with for an entire year. Yay?

Beyond has officially had it’s fourth birthday a few weeks ago and no one noticed. Want to know what’s crazy? This has now been the longest no Star Trek film has been even green lit in the franchise literally since TMP. This has now been the longest ‘development’ between films in over forty years.

I know after Beyond bombed it put things in a tailspin sort of the way Nemesis did when it bombed. But if they are THIS worried about making another movie, then maybe its best to just be honest with themselves and put the Star Trek movies on the back burner for awhile and just concentrate on the shows.

Because I’m almost certain a year from now, we are going to be at the same place…only with probably some other script.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

They are trying someway somehow to get China to absolutely love Star Trek like they love Marvel. It won’t work. Star Wars failed to do it, Star Trek will do no better.

There’s no reason to say that. Star Wars couldn’t do it because the movies suck. Maybe the Chinese audience appreciates good entertainment, and isn’t getting it.

I’m on the same boat. I don’t like Star Trek movies the same way as Marvel movies.

That’s not saying much. Marvel movies have had basically one script over the last ten years.

I have a feeling that an announcement could drop by the end of this year. CBS and Viacom were both in a state of flux resulting in a bit of a holding pattern as both sides spent the better part of the year preparing for an inevitable merger. With the merger complete and the new management structure in place, focus has shifted back to the basic day-to-day operation of a film studio.

It likely has less to do with concern about making a new movie than ensuring that they get the entire thing right from securing the talent, announcing the project and then guiding the thing with a steady and consistent hand from start to finish. The 2009 film was hugely successful but Paramount relinquished far too much control to Abrams which resulted in a sequel which didn’t hit theaters until four years later and allowed the rebooted film franchise to cool off. Paramount Pictures current management is unlikely to allow that to happen again.

Maybe Denny C, but I’m just not holding my breath anymore.

I think now that the merger is done it at least helps bring the franchise together again with both the TV and film side, but I think the film side is still just as lost in terms of direction (clearly).

I think they thought the Kelvin films were going to basically be its own franchise for years to come. I mean why put it in it’s own universe unless you had plans of not just more TOS character films but maybe even spin offs of other movies in that universe and build it up like the prime universe today?

But as you said they gave WAY too much control to Abrams who never saw Star Trek as a priority but really to build up his resume and the movies never got off the ground as they intended. They originally wanted a sequel out by 2011. Now, it will be a miracle if a movie will even get made in the next two years.

The funny thing is I still would like to see the Kelvin universe becomes its own thing as intended but it looks like that idea has basically all but died now.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

No JJ stuff please, no Disco or Picard movie either. Something new, something getting back to ‘Trek roots

Exactly. I also don’t need it to be connected to the larger Trek universe/timeline. No origin story – just a good series of adventures with these characters..

Star Trek 2009 is by far the best new Star Trek movie in recent memory. Into Darkness and Beyond are disappointments. Honestly I don’t care anymore. Whatever comes next, count me out.

I don’t care about Kirk’s daddy issues. I want to see something new in a Star Trek movie. To boldly go where no one has gone before.

Although I’m not jazzed about the Kirk’s dad plot, I would really enjoy a sequel to Beyond.

Spot on

It’s really amazing how often I find myself in complete disagreement with everything that’s being said. And frustrating.

The ultimate challenge for every ST is to be one of the ST’s that changed ST.

If you can’t do that, you’re giving us something we’ve already got… and typically a fourth-generation copy of it at that.

The Motion Picture. The Wrath of Khan. The Voyage Home. The Next Generation (first four seasons). The Undiscovered Country. Deep Space Nine (whenever it was not making recycled TNG). And (yes), the 2009 movie (but not the sequels). Not VOY, not most of ENT, not most of whatever Kurtzman Trek is doing. And not even First Contact (yes, we all know FC was fun).

Be one of the STs that changed ST.

(And you do NOT do that by literally being one of those STs. You’ll never make the next Wrath of Khan by consciously remaking The Wrath of Khan.)

If you’re worried about “getting it right”, or finding “the cleanest path forward”, you’re never going to roll the hard six. You can’t do it. You’ve already locked yourself out from any possibility of that happening.

Can’t get there from here.

You want some guarantee that it’s going to be good? Really? You want Safe Trek. Being one of the pioneering STs will always elude you, because you’ll be doing what Berman Trek did. Your best hope is to hire a team that largely ignores you (assuming they just happen to have some creative dynamic between them that you lack, and they have that in spite of you rather than because of you). That’s like your best-case scenario if you’re busy playing it safe.

The Chris Hemsworth movie, I think we can safely say, is another Beyond. From the writers whose script got passed up for Beyond, and whose newer script is perhaps even morphed from that earlier unrealized project. I see no great cause to assume it’s anything more than another Safe Trek that, like Beyond, wouldn’t know how to market itself once it got made (so naturally, it’s the one Paramount, in all there lack of enthusiasm, seems least willing to put to rest).

The Hawley Trek seems like a smarter way to acknowledge the Kelvin franchise while spinning off something new, if both reports above are to be believed. It also seems from previous reports on comments that he made (none of which do I recall clearly at the moment) that Hawley had more of a vision for what ST hasn’t already tried.

However Tarantino’s movie remains the one I would go to first — just to have the most off-brand version of ST possible. Assuming he was at least interested in producing it (I’m not even clear that the window on Tarantino Trek ever really closed, as opposed to naysayers assuming it had. He did say he “might be moving away” from it though, which certainly confirms that he wouldn’t direct). Tarantino’s somebody I would give the keys to just to have a one-off version of ST that’s completely different from everything else.

Nothing excites me less than the prospect of seeing the ST film franchise conformed to whatever Kurtzman Trek is doing on TV, perhaps with the misguided notion of bringing larger audiences into Kurtzman Trek (that’s not going to happen). We don’t need a conformed film/TV franhise for Trek. We already had that in the ’90s.

All these ideas sound safe and boring to me Sam. Going back to the mob planet? Really?? Is that taking ‘risks’? It just sounds like more nostalgia and fan service, not taking any real chances. NO ONE seems all that excited about the Kirk dad idea when it was first revealed back in 2016. Everyone seems to agree it’s not an exciting idea. And I’m shocked its still in contention because even Hemsworth publicly shot it down a freaking year ago already (where does the time go??)

The virus one CAN be interesting because we haven’t seen a lot of those stories in Trek (well we just got in LDS lol). But yeah it’s still not something I think of people will care about and maybe a bit done with the subject matter right now. Maybe its why it was shot down.

I think I see why Paramount isn’t exactly excited and running with the ball. None of these sound all that original or exciting IMO.

Agree with you again Tiger2.

I’m not sure what kind of original or exciting will get audiences post-COVID.
I’d add that this is the real thing that will make it all the trickier to get it right.

It’s not just a matter of being able to make big productions on a cinematic scale. It’s that COVID-19 is likely to have an impact on preferences as profound as did 9/11.

There’s more than a good likelihood that Trek’s brand of aspirational stories will be what audiences will be looking for, but that will be hard for Paramount to test before investing. More, I don’t sense that any of the current writers would be a good fit for that.

That’s so true. Covid-19 has changed our landscape the way 9/11 did. In so many ways worse of course because I still can’t even go to the mall where I live lol. So yeah, it’s going to be interesting how much of an impact it will have once we finally get over the hump.

But yes as you said I want to be INSPIRED and none of these films sound anywhere close to that. They don’t have to be some grand story but at least something about overcoming adversity or about the human spirit in some meaningful way and that doesn’t just mean defeating another uber-villian in a big ship like the last crop of films.

Again, the virus story COULD be that in fact but since we know nothing beyond that who knows. And it’s probably too soon for that kind of story right now. And since it sounds like Paramount is not interested in doing it then maybe it just wasn’t that interesting in the first place. The movies are definitely in a dilemma these days, especially now.

People need to stop automatically conflating (and I suspect purposely conflating) the use of familiar characters and premises with either fan service or risk aversiveness. Examine the circumstances. Sometimes it may be those things (ST certainly has its share of shameless fan service). Sometimes it’s just being pragmatic (I want to come back around here to discuss Hawley’s movie). Sometimes it’s completely non-applicable. It’s obvious, for example, that Tarantino had a very specific idea for ST. He’s interested in taking a particular aspect of pop culture from the original series and blowing it up. Fans who focus more on the overall “canon”, choosing not to acknowledge the original series has an iconic status that is denied to its spin-offs (with the possible exception of TNG), I suspect may be blindsided by something like this. You may just not see any value in something that doesn’t expand upon ST’s “canon.” But if you didn’t have ST: Everything Else, it would be no different than Have Bennett watching all 79 episodes of TOS and picking ONE to base the next movie off of. Ordinarily you wouldn’t pick one of the “oddball” eps… though they’re unfortunately the ones pop culture tends to latch onto the most (how often have we seen Spock’s Brain parodied?). If anyone but a Tarantino (or perhaps a Kevin Smith) suggested Piece of the Action as the basis for a ST movie, I’d probably think they were on drugs (which these guys already are). This kind of thing is always what Tarantino was likely to be focused on… even back when you seemed to be insisting (I’m fairly certain) that his movie probably had all new characters. Now Paramount merger aside, look at CBS’ own mission statement for Trek. They keep insisting they want each Trek series to have its own personality. GREAT. I’ve been saying that ever since bloody ST:VOY premiered! But unfortunately, this is KIND OF the point where I really want both Kurtzman and fans in general to put their money where their mouth is. To fully do so is to accept and even embrace the possibility that something like what Tarantino pitched to Paramount could exists within the world of ST, whether it’s “canon” or not. Blumhouse already made a “horror movie” version of Fantasy Island. Why is ST almost always OK with letting everybody else “get there” first (“there” being anywhere that’s outside the box)? Why are fans persistently OK with it? I’m not to keen on a “virus” story either, although I really don’t care (at all) to get into the bloody “It’s too soon!” argument that’s inevitably reared its tiresome head again. My takeaway is we still know almost nothing about Hawley’s script, meanwhile up until now he’s the guy most of you were placing your bets on (and even more frustratingly, his script was the one Paramount seemed to be moving fwd. I mean I would even have -grudgingly- written off Tarantino Trek at this point). What’s interesting to me are the conflicting reports. Kelvin cast? Original cast? (Original characters?) This is interesting, because it appears to confirm, once again, my firm belief in how the sausage gets made. What if it’s both? You keep saying they should make a feature film with entirely new characters? This is how you get there. You’ve still got to get the general audiences to see it. People who will happily see a sci-fi film if someone they know is in it, but won’t see a “Star Track” movie unless it feels somehow connected to some other “Star Track” they’ve actually liked. You don’t even need the full Kelvin cast, if say Zoe Saldana is unavailable (you will have to make their parts big enough to be worth their while). It doesn’t matter that it will have been 14 years since the last GOOD Trek movie, people will remember they’ve accepted Zach Quinto as Spock. What matters is you GET the audiences into theaters and YOU just bought yourself two hours to sell them on your new characters and where you (appear to be) taking the film series next. You’ve tried to shoot me down every time I’ve made this argument, but look again at Kurtzman Trek so far. It’s front-loaded by the two shows that had maximum crossover potential out of everything on their list. This is no coincidence. (I also love how fans want to hijack terms like “nostalgia” to automatically deliver a negative connotation, only to be perfectly happy with dropping in familiar characters the moment you give them a 24th century show that *vaguely* resembles the “30/50/100 Years After Nemesis” sequel they’ve been clamoring for over the past two decades.) I’ve not heard anything about Hawley’s movie being “shot down”, certainly not prior to this article (have you?). To hear that… Read more »

I also missed where Hemsworth “shot down” the Chris-and-Chris-in-the-mornings movie.

https://trekmovie.com/2019/05/28/chris-hemsworth-explains-why-he-turned-down-star-trek-4/

Thanks for that, Matt.

So there it is then, they’re sitting on a dead movie. Unless they’re thinking they can get the script re-worked. It doesn’t seem like they’ve ever had much enthusiasm for it though. And I think the writers still have almost nothing else on their resume.

You know what, they can waste as much time as they want. Nothing in Hollywood’s likely getting made for at least another year.

OK, I will respond to as much of this as possilble since you wrote out all of this for me directly, but yeah it’s a lot lol. But I will respond to what I think is most important and/or you misperception on this. First of all and this is the most important. I don’t want you to think I’m here just trying to shoot you down on all this. If that’s how you feel about it, then I apologize. Honestly man, I just respond to you like I do everyone else as I have on this thread. Yes me and you have talked about it, but no more than others have. And of course I don’t want you to feel I’m out to put down your ideas no matter how I feel about it. I’m just giving my opinion of course but its not in any way meant to attack yours either. And if you feel that’s what I been doing then I apologize, but that’s not my intent at all. Yes we disagree, but that’s all it is, a disagreement. My opinion is no more valid or ‘right’ then yours, I know that. I’m just having a conversation end of the day. But I want to make it clear and I will be aware of that if we talk again in the future. As far as your other thoughts, look, I want to also make this clear as possible. When I heard Tarantino wanted to make a Star Trek movie, I was 100% on board. Nothing ever gets erased on this website so if you can find that thread where it was first rumored you will see I was completely for it. When it was mentioned he wanted to do something with the TOS characters, I was completely fine with that too. When it was mentioned it could be R rated, I had zero issues with that as well (and let’s be honest, all the new shows basically rated R anyway given the level of violence and cursing they do. Picard may not have as many F bombs as a Tarantino movie, but certainly enough lol). So I just want to make that clear I was all for a Tarantino movie at the start. What LOST me on that idea is when he said he wanted to use the Kelvin characters but place them in the prime timeline. That was just a complete no-go to me that I have already expressed in other threads, obviously the one it was first mentioned. And then the fact he couldn’t understand how the Kelvin universe even worked, even if he hated the idea (and yes many do) was a really dead stop for me. If you can’t grasp how an alternate universe works in something like Star Trek then no offense, you should really not be making Star Trek. UNLESS of course you at least have writers who do understand it and willing to guide you on it like clearly Orci and Kurtzman did with Abrams that started all of it. It was their idea at the end of the day, Abrams probably didn’t care one way or the other. And yes, I just think his actual story premise sucks. Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks!!! That’s just to get hardcore TOS fans on board…and literally no one else. You can’t compare it to TWOK because A. the entire point of that movie WAS to only attract the hardcore base because they gave up trying to turn it into ‘Star Wars’ the second TMP didn’t deliver as hoped and why B. they only paid $12 million for it. If it was meant to be 30+ million as TMP back then then it would’ve been as much of a bad idea. Well maybe not as much because it was a GOOD film and it brought back what made TOS great. If Tarantino could do the same, fine, but its no way that is a story made for mass appeal. It just sounds like his own personal vanity project and yeah not a great one IMO. But lastly I want to make this clear too, if he wanted to do it and Paramount said yes, then FINE, but you should STILL put it in your own universe if it’s not suppose to be the Kelvin universe. Not because I don’t think it’s ‘worthy’ of being in the prime universe, only so not to freaking confuse everyone on the timeline. Dude, this is what frustrates me beyond anything. I have NO issues Tarantino or anyone wants to do their own thing. Once again to clear up ANY misconceptions, I am 100% OK with that. He and others wants to just make their own Trek film on their terms and decide Kirk had an Andorian mother and… Read more »

Somehow I didn’t see this one… sorry about that.

Anyway, “shot down” was probably a harsh and hasty choice of words on my part (sorry again). We had talked previously about the prospect of launching a ST film series with new characters… something I’m not ordinarily able to picture how you would do — although I suppose the most obvious way would be to get some very well-established actors (something I don’t often think about because Trek traditionally hasn’t done it).

But more interestingly, Rob Burnett just did another piece on Youtube re the aborted Star Trek -The Beginning script from 2006. So there’s at least precedent for someone at Paramount wanting to do an original ST film. I’d probably dismissed it as a Berman project — I’m less clear that it would have been given ENT had already been canceled. So there’s that.

My point however was in making a case for wanting to know more about Hawley’s script, after other things he’d said about it sounded promising, before dismissing it. It also seemed like the most viable of the three projects (even for someone like me who wanted Tarantino’s thing), which is why I’m really surprised to see it back-burnered for the least viable project. Maybe Watts just hasn’t caught up with the negotiated history of this whole thing?

I don’t agree at all on the Tarantino movie (is there something in the timespace continuum that says Kirk can only look like Chris Pine in one very particular stream of events?), but I assume that bird has mostly flown by now anyway. Watts most likely thinks they can just take Smith’s script and morph it into something more traditionally Trek-compliant, which is not interesting to me at all and would defeat the whole purpose.

If we do get the Kelvin Hemsworth movie, I think it might be marginally better than what we’ve seen so far on Kurtzman Trek (and having gotten a better picture of what happened with Nick Meyer I think I’ve largely written off Kurtzman Trek at this point), just because it would be only a 2-hour movie and someone would need to have an almost-coherent story before shooting it. But what are the chances that Payne and McKay’s script even anticipated being the LAST Kelvin film? The way Kelvin’s been managing itself so far, I kind of bet that it didn’t.

Making the ST film series “strong” again would definitely make sense to me before starting a film series with new characters, if you convinced me that a fourth Kelvin movie would have that effect. Otherwise Hawley’s movie (assuming it does indeed serve that function of transitioning away from Kelvin and I’m not reading too much into it) just seems like the best way there.

Cheers.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sam

Because I’m so bored (I can’t wait until life becomes normal again!!) I actually went and FOUND my first initial impression of what I thought when I heard QT could be making a Trek movie. It was literally just my first impressions he was doing it and nothing else go to go on obviously:

Tiger2

 December 5, 2017 2:40 am

Sounds interesting. I wonder if they are still thinking another KT film, another TOS reboot or even a TNG reboot (since he’s a big fan of both TOS and TNG).

My gut is thinking it will stick with the KT crew if Abrams is involved. But yeah who knows? Either way I would like to see another Trek film before Discovery ends her run by its 7th season. I really don’t mind another Kelvin film although if I had my wish they would just do something entirely different like Discovery (although NOT Discovery ;)).
Anyway Trek is never truly dead. It will always keep living long in prospering in some form as its always done.

https://trekmovie.com/2017/12/04/report-quentin-tarantino-teaming-up-with-jj-abrams-for-star-trek-story-pitch/#comments

So you see that? I had no issues with him thinking about making a Trek film one way or the other and in fact suggested it could be another TOS reboot film which I was completely fine with. As I said I had no issues with any of it or if it’s a new TOS cast, the Kelvin cast or yes something completely new altogether. I just wanted another freaking movie for the most part….and three years on still denied lol.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Well his and Hawley’s scripts both seem likely at this point to be better than anything that’s ever likely to come out of Kurtzman Trek.

Robservations just did a piece on the shelved Khan miniseries (which I previously did not see a place for). It’s now apparent that the former CBS Trek machine got rid of Meyer after Fuller left because he was creatively intimidating and nobody could keep up with him, rather than vice-versa.

Well Kurtzman did write the first two Kelvin movies and from what I can remember you really liked the first one at least. While I never loved the KT films I always liked them and didn’t have much of an issue with STID as others did here (but did have plenty of issues, but it was still very entertaining to me).

But I imagine now that Paramount and CBS is one big happy corporation again they may try and tie the movies to the shows like in the past. Maybe nothing extreme but how the TOS and TNG films were done at least by acknowledging each other. That seem to also bother people with the KT movies since it was in another universe you can’t really cross it over with any of the former shows or characters. So Kurtzman could get involved with the movie side again in theory at least.

I wish Meyer had stayed but I’m SO happy that Khan miniseries never saw the light of day. It just felt soooo unnecessary in so many ways.

Kind of off topic but you seem really down on the new shows. But yeah, get in line lol. I think you know my feelings on them at this point, more disappointed but still optimistic they will improve as I felt all the past shows did. But have you seen the first episode of Lower Decks? What’s your feeling on that? I know its divisive at the moment but I really loved the first episode. Brought me back to Star Trek in a way the other two shows didn’t, especially Discovery.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I’ve not reactivated my AA yet to check out LDS. Maybe Wednesday if I feel well enough rested.

I love the production work and non-traditional approach of Kurtzman Trek (when they’re not busy rolling back whatever the fans dislike), I just can’t understand what goes on in their writers’ rooms. It’s Kutzman’s TV work on Trek that pushes me away from him and Akiva Goldsman.

As long as these guys are in charge of TV Trek I’m really hoping the movies remain a separate entity. WB’s DC stuff being a good precedent for this.

On the movie front, I didn’t dislike Into Darkness so much as wonder why did they do that to themselves. Why set yourself up for comparison against an object too many people regard as unmovable? Kurtsman’s and Orci’s confidence that they could do that really came back and hurt them.

Rob Bernett’s video on the Khan miniseries is very worth checking out when you’ve got two hrs. It’s not just actors on a tiny sand-blowing set like I probably imagined it. It sounds like we got cheated out of the strongest chapter of Kurtzman Trek so far and never knew it.

His review of the Star Trek – Beginning script is literally the Robcast before the Khan one.

(So yeah, I too want that movie, because even with all the Kurtzman stuff I feel like we’re in a Trek void. I tend to be more about the movies anyway)

Hear, hear

meh put Trek Movies on the back burner until the TV shows burn out again

What is wrong with these people? Hire some science fiction writers!!!!

Honestly, how many people would pay $10.00 or more to see a so called squeal to “Star Trek: Beyond” in movie theaters which are now considered a “super spreader” environment. It was a collection of cliches and a boring plot which was hardly worth the effort. Most likely just a paycheck for those involved. The actors at least liked each others company. Nobody I saw that film with ever wants to see it again.

Trek is always best on TV. But “A Piece of the Action” as a movie? That actually sounds very awesome. Honestly, there are many TOS episodes that would work as a movie, like Doomsday Machine, Immunity Syndrome, Enterprise Incident, Galileo Seven, etc, but I never thought that Piece of the Action could work. But yeah, bring it!

That is the argument that Tarantino made, and it sounds like he actually pursued the idea far enough to have it scripted out.

If the Tarantino movie never gets made hopefully they will release the script as a book or in some format.

I’m 100 percent for it as long as Tarantino’s willing to at least produce. If he’s just completely moved on then there’s little point. Whatever oddball thing this is, I’m sure that at least his partial involvement is essential.

And no matter how weird, it can hardly be worse than 2/3 of the ST movies already out there (many of which probably weren’t weird enough, or anything enough).

And only something hardcore fans will even care about. That’s the problem, it just sounds like something for a nostalgia trip, not something that’s new or original.

You don’t need to do something like that for a film. They could just do that in a two part episode for the hardcore base. No one beyond that is going to be remotely excited about it. It’s probably why Paramount never really considered doing it once Tarantino moved on.

I agree with you. Don’t really like this idea of using ‘A Piece of the Action’ as the basis for a movie. In fact I don’t like any of the 3 possible scripts mentioned in the article.

I’d love to see a new movie in the Prime universe with new cast and new characters. Set it a 100 years after Nemesis & take it from there.

I have no preference for what universe they use, or just do a few one offs conceptually. With a strong likelihood of there being eight years between projects, the next project is a great opportunity for a clean slate.

Coolness. If they can get the movie end of the franchise back up to warp speed like the good old days, the idea of Logan-esque spinoff movies is pretty appealing. Somebody page Frakes – he seems to have a pretty firm grasp of the directing end of it, now. Might actually be interesting to see what he could do with the Abrams-verse cast.

Wow, Mirror Hawley is so much more attractive than Prime Hawely

Making a Star Trek movie doesn’t need to be this hard. First, throw out the Kelvin timeline. It’s over, the actors are over it, the public has moved on. Second, come up with a good story, I mean really good, not some stupid a$$ money-sucking action schlock. Challenge the intellect the way science fiction is meant to. Third, find a cheap cast to play new characters. The general public doesn’t need Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana to understand it’s Star Trek; literally just put them in any uniform with a Starfleet delta on their chest and people will know what it is. New ship, new people, new story. Lastly, sketch out a direction for the next half decade of the franchise. Set up the sequel so that it ties in with the streaming Trek shows in some way. Do all this, and they can create a sustainable business model that actually earns them money, and makes Trek relevant in the cultural consciousness in a way neither Kelvin Trek nor Kurtzman Trek has managed to do.

Amen!

Second, come up with a good story

That’s the problem, though. Most of the recent Trek movies have been rehashes of something that had been done before. But also most the “brilliant” ideas thrown out by fans are just rehashes. I’m sorry but I haven’t heard a good story idea in any of this. Challenging the intellect is a nice idea but 1) it’s easier said than actually done, and 2) unfortunately doesn’t seem to attract big enough audiences to justify the cost of making it.

The general public doesn’t need Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana to understand it’s Star Trek; literally just put them in any uniform with a Starfleet delta on their chest and people will know what it is.

People might know. But many won’t be interested in watching it. Whether we like it or not, popular actors are often a bigger draw especially in international markets than the specific story. Star Trek is struggling to attract audiences beyond its existing fanbase. I’m not sure simply strapping a Starfleet delta on a bunch of no-name actors is going to solve this.

Definitely hear you that a good story is probably the hardest element of all of this. But I’m pretty sure they hired [relatively] no-name actors when they cast ST09, so there’s a precedent there. [I will admit many in the cast had done notable work in the past though.] I suppose the main difference is that there was such intrigue surrounding the first recasting of the primary characters in Trek that until then had been played by the same actors. It would be much harder to pull off a cast of unknowns when the characters are also unknown.

Interesting analysis DIGINON.

First Contact and The Undiscovered Country were the last two Star Trek movies that had great stories, and First Contact was arguably too “in universe” to draw beyond those who watched the television series.

It’s really odd and/or unfortunate that the executives who are hunting for good movie or serial television story ideas don’t have people look at the better Star Trek novels.

They already own the rights, with no need to even acknowledge the for-hire authors.

There are definitely some great stories in the past few decades of Trek-lit that would reach a greater audience than those we keep on hearing spun out and never being greenlighted.

Good story yes…

But how many more casts do you need, DISCO, SNW, Section 31……it will be more confusing

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael Thompson UK

It does sound like the Hawley movie was going to at least move on from the Kelvin universe and with new actors. MAYBE it would’ve stayed in that universe but I kind of doubt it.

But I basically agree with everything you said.

A familiar (and understandble) pattern: either the films wait for the TV franchise to be revitalized (STVI being greenlit after the failure of V due to TNG), or TV waits for a hit movie (STIV essentially paved the way for TNG = all of ’90s Trek). Hemsworth is 100% starpower and non-fan-butts-in-seats, and its written already, so it’s probably more of a no-brainer than something that presents more variables.

“Hemsworth is 100% starpower and non-fan-butts-in-seats, and its written already, so it’s probably more of a no-brainer than something that presents more variables.”

Oh really? Four letters: KHAAAAAN!

uhh, that’s 7 letters….oh wait….

> Hemsworth is 100% starpower

Only in Marvel movies. Outside of Marvel, Hemsworth is a box office disaster.
All his none-Marvel movies were box office failures: Blackhat, In the Heart of the Sea, The Huntsman: Winter’s War, Ghostbusters, 12 Strong, Men in Black: International & Rush

What’s up, Ahmed! Long time…

Hey there, hope you’re doing well.

Honestly the current slate of Star Trek shows left me with little desire to come here to talk about Star Trek.

Same here.

Yup.

Ghostbusters failed cuz it was a lousy movie, and he certainly wasn’t the main draw in that movie, or wasn’t supposed to be. Let’s talk about Extraction though…

What’s your point? His picture was on the poster and he was playing a big role. The box office numbers are very clear, every movie outside of Marvel where he is the star or co-star was a failure.

What the box office numbers for ‘Extraction’? None, because it was released on a streaming service, not in theaters.

So happy to see you back Ahmed! :)

And agreed with everything you said about Hemsworth. He’s a big ‘star’ but ironically everything he’s done when he’s not in a Marvel movie has bombed. And yeah you can’t really count Extraction. That’s sort of the advantage of Netflix, you are basically getting these big films without paying any additional costs and naturally people will be inclined to watch it. I mean I did lol. And I liked it, but its no telling how well it would’ve done in a theater because Hemsworth has not proven to be anywhere close to the next Tom Cruise without a Marvel intro leading into this movies.

In fact I remember suggesting part of the reason why the fourth Kelvin movie didn’t happen is because Paramount probably realized just having him in the movie was no longer a guarantee hit they probably originally thought it could be and wanted to lower his salary. PURE speculation on my part but wouldn’t be a surprise if its true.

The forth Kelvin movie didn’t happen because of the budget.

I know that, the point is they didn’t think whatever they planned to pay Hemsworth wasn’t worth it and so it was part of the budget they tried to cut.

> Paramount probably realized just having him in the movie was no longer a guarantee hit they probably originally thought it could be and wanted to lower his salary.

Paramount did ask him to take pay cut, along with Pine, but Hemsworth refused and the movie was back in development hell.

Yeah, lets see how that would work in a contact negotation:
Paramount: Hi, is this Chris Hemsworth agent? This is world famous Paramount Studios, and we’d like Mr. Hemsworth to appear in our next production of Star Trek. Now, lets face is, Chris ain’t worth s**t outside of Disney, so we’d like to pay him $500, an expense account of $50 a day, and a royalty of $0.001 for every ticket sold. You can’t beat that offer with a stick!! Can he report to the studio on Monday?
Chris Hemsworth’s Agent: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Paramount: Hello? Hello? Must be a bad connection….

> Yeah, lets see how that would work in a contact negotation

We already saw that in 2018 when Paramount was demanding that Hemsworth and Pine take pay cuts. When the actors refused, the negotiation failed & both sides walked away.

Per THR, Paramount “contends that Star Trek is not like a Marvel or Star Wars movie and is trying to hold the line on a budget.”

Outside of Mavrel, Hemsworth is simply not a box office draw.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ahmed

And yet, he keeps getting parts. If they weren’t willing to pay him in 2018, they aren’t going to pay him in 2023.

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

Of course Hemsworth is getting parts, never disputed that. My point that he is not a box office draw outside of Marvel movies, pure and simple.

Guess we’re done here.

No, I’m just illuminating that your observation is pretty much pointless. Paramount is either going to pay him what he wants, or his agent is going to tell them to stuff their offer. Your opinion on what his appeal is is irrelevent to the conversation.

Regardless of what you think Paramount walked away in 2018 precisely because he is not a box office draw.

Exactly Ahmed. If that was the case, then they would’ve just paid him whatever they promised him years ago. The issue was not only did Beyond bomb, but so did literally every Hemsworth film he was in that period that didn’t involve Marvel.

They only brought the guy back because they were hoping maybe his new star power could bring in more people before they realized he didn’t really HAVE star power and why they wanted to lower his salary. If his movies were bringing in huge profits then they would’ve paid him at least what they promised in the first place. In fact if his movies did much better he probably could’ve asked for more money and they probably would’ve gave it to him.

My God. The Kelvin universe is dead. Beyond BOMBED. Why make another movie with that crew? It will be ou in 2022 or 2023 at the earliest, 6 or 7 years since Beyond and 13 or 14 years since that first movie! It’s time to move on and do something new!

I quite liked it actually, should have be an anniversary movie. ITD did the damage!

I always mistake Noah Hawley for Simon Pegg.

May be its good someone new is in charge, come on Emma!

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike Thompson UK

No breaking news at all. First of all, it is very bad timing to fantasize about any new Trek movie at all as long as production is on halt and cinemas are considered danger zones. Even if they re-open widely, I doubt many people will attend in order to avoid additional risk of infection. But first they need a safe way to get the series back into production… No more blockbuster cinema until 2023 or beyond…

Second, none of the concepts here are intriguing… Kirk time travel movie… nah… A cinematic version of A Piece of the Action based on a Tarantino idea? Yikes.

I liked and ST09 and Beyond (not so much STID), but the best thing about these movies was the score by Giaccino. Get this guy to score Strange New Worlds (he did some work for the Enterprise-related Short Treks!) and I’d be happy to let go of the KT for good. Just get Giaccino for SNW!

Hear, hear! I am a big Giacchino fan, love his Trek scores

Loved the score, 09 is my ring tone

Interesting info on the Tarantino script idea. As a child, A Piece of the Action was easily one of my favorite episodes. It was an entertaining comedy that was perfect for “1960s” kids and families to watch. Only as a young adult did I realize that it wasn’t very realistic as any society ran by heavily armed organized crime lords would be brutally viscous and violent, not very funny at all. I personally was not a fan of Tarantino’s “stylized violence” genre of films, but if this story is accurate I am sure his take on A Piece of the Action would be much more realistic than the TOS episode. I for one am intrigued and even though I am still mildly entertained by watching the feel good TOS episode, I would be interested in seeing what Kirk, Spock and McCoy would do if they really ran into a society ran by organized crime.

Last edited 1 month ago by DeanH

They need to let CBS all Access take over. Start where Star Trek: Picard left off with an entirely new crew and adventure. Then maybe we’ll have something worth paying for. Going back to the past is getting tiring… Let Kirk and the other rest in peace! Elvis is dead!

Last edited 1 month ago by voyagerseven

I would love to see a Star Trek movie on the big screen again, but I have a hard time seeing a Kelvin movie being terribly successful at this point. The cast is incredible however, so it’s worth exploring. I just don’t know how you draw more people than the last movie, the novelty seems to have run its course for the broader audience. I would suggest Star Trek go back to the post TNG era, that would be new and exciting again for many fans like me not that interested in TOS. I’m not sure what kind of story they could tell, but the Enterprise F is a very simple idea that could be broadly appealing with a new cast and a shiny new world. It would also be nice to see a film franchise commit to larger multi-part story, although I realize that’s not how franchise movies are actually written in the first place.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael K

The issue of Chris Pine’s contractual dispute with Paramount is conspicuously absent from this article. Phil (I think it was Phil) mentioned in the comments that there’s new management at Paramount that might be more agreeable to living up to Pine’s contractual expectations. Is this accurate? It seems weird for Paramount to say that re-visiting a Beyond sequel is the cleanest path forward, when the project was shelved due to an insurmountable roadblock in the form of Pine’s contract. What’s up with that, ay?

It seems likely that there are a lot of things going on the scenes beyond Pine’s contract that are affecting the Trek movies. CBS merging with Paramount again has scrambled plans. JJ Abrams leaving Paramount likely affected plans. Paramount itself has been in turmoil for years with multiple management changes.

What can they do with it at this very point? Beyond has been done now over 4 years ago. It underperformed and frankly it wasn’t terribly great either.
The TOS films always had a very strong through line and it was like a well oiled machine really. Not even Trek V could drive a nail in the machine.
And then after VI there was a very clear next step, that being TNG migrating to the big screen to take over from TOS.
After NEM Star Trek quickly went away and the logical next step was a reboot and the Academy Movie idea was finally realized sort of.
Now, what is the next step?

Yours is my point too. Sherry Lansing certainly wouldn’t have had trouble getting someone to finance Pine. His contract isn’t the roadblock. It was and is the misogynists’ interoffice politics and wars that contributed far more insurmountable obsticals.

Wasn’t this Phil. I’ve been pretty consistent that Paramount was going to hold a hard line on a budget closer to 100MM then 200MM, and when they couldn’t get concessions on paying the talent, Paramount shut it down. There’s little to suggest that either of the Chris’ in 2023 are going to take a 2018 pay cut, which is why that project is as dead today as it was 2-3 years ago.

Cygnus-X1,

I’m not sure you are couching Paramount’s movie financing accurately.

The contractual commitments the one regime made to the two actors bound Paramount. The studio was making payments to keep them available. It wasn’t insurmountable for Paramount to meet their obligations for Pine’s contract.

It was the next Paramount Regime that created the roadblock by choosing to break the studio’s legal promise and renegotiate.

So I don’t see why you think, somehow, it is impossible for yet another regime change to somehow find value in the original commitment and find someway to finance it to go forward?

Oh, great!

The rumour is that ‘Strange New Worlds” is dead in-house at CBS due to lack of interest for funding by investors. They probably got scared off after spending $8 million per episode on Discovery to have it produce PURE DRIVEL! Now, when a Trek series with real merit comes along, the investors run for the hills after being sold a banquet of bullshit!

Where are you hearing that? How is it dead when not two weeks ago they said they are working on it?

I read it at boundingintocomics.com.

do not use this site to spread false rumors, even when you know they are false.

This is guaranteed 100% BS.

Sorry, Anthony. I didn’t know that.

Is there a need for more Star Trek movies? I understand why it was needed in 1979 and 2009, to revitalize the brand. But the brand is already alive right now on television in a big way. Unless there’s some great new novel Star Trek story they’re dying to tell, I guess, I’m not seeing what the point is. Other than making money for Paramount.

I don’t see that the “brand” is very alive on TV in a “big way.” There’s two shows. Not four, not five, not seven, but just two (soon to be three). And so far the scrambled eggs keep coming out dry and rubbery.

(Although I stand corrected on LDS having already apparently come out)

I wasn’t referring to the quality of the shows, just the fact that the brand is alive. With three in production and another animated series on the way, yes, Star Trek on TV is very much alive.

How well they’re received is another matter.

Last edited 1 month ago by AllenWrench

What’s the point in having ST if we’re apparently not entitled to have good ST?

The ST “brand” on TV doesn’t appear healthy, ergo it is very much debatable whether the “brand” is alive.

Do you want any ST at all that is not under Kurtzman’s umbrella? Or are you “just fine” with what we’re getting on TV?

There’s you answer.

Don’t be obtuse. That’s not the issue here. I was only talking about it being alive as opposed to there not being any Trek on TV. I personally think their latest offerings have been quite poor, but that’s irrelevant.

Argue with someone else. I’m not interested.

Last edited 1 month ago by AllenWrench

I will not be called obtuse. I did not have that coming to me at all. It’s apparent the question you opened with was rhetorical and therefore pointless. How’s that for being obtuse.

Just make the damn movie already. Us true trekkies are tired of all the elites nit picking..just pay them already!

I look forward to the day Paramount or CBS gets Trek right again.

Just give us all 3 with the 2 Kirks first then the Tarrantino movie & sometime whenever the deadly years remake! Give us something Paramount Trek movie wise soon its taking way too long! I suspect Netflix will probably be the main production partner like with the Beverly Hill4 & Coming To America 2 sequels.

im happy with all of this… but question: did orci or anyone ever leak his doomed project that turned into beyond? would love to read it

Orci has made some comments about it here on TrekMovie, but has never released the script anywhere to my knowledge. The story involved TOS Kirk and Spock meeting with Kelvin Kirk and Spock to solve some universe-threatening crisis from what he said about it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Just Another Salt Vampire

Back when Orci made the comments, the only thing I remember being mentioned was Spock Prime showing NuKirk a holographic message of Kirk Prime singing Happy Birthday to him, thus proving the depth of their life long friendship. Nothing more than a cameo shot of Shatner (pre Nexus).

That’s why Orci just said no time travel involved.

As far as I remember the birthday greeting scene was discussed by the producers for the 2009 movie but never actually pitched to Shatner. By the time of Beyond, Kirk wouldn’t have needed a video of Prime-Kirk as proof of his friendship with Spock.

Yes, and Shatner has said he won’t do cameos. He expects any movie to give his character a BIG part. Gawd, the ego!

That was the scene that they actually wrote for the first Kelvin movie. The Kirks and Spocks meeting was his initial stab at Kelvin movie 3 when he was going to direct it, but Nimoy died and everything went off the rails, and continued to until he left the project.

None of these ideas really grab me at this point. I need more.