The script they scrapped for Star Trek 3 was scrapped because it was "a little too Star Treky"? Are they serious? So instead of staying true to Gene Roddenberry's vision (and what the fans want)...
The script they scrapped for Star Trek 3 was scrapped because it was "a little too Star Treky"?
Are they serious?
So instead of staying true to Gene Roddenberry's vision (and what the fans want) they opt to make it a competitor for the Avengers. Star Trek is not an action series and it shouldn't be, pushing it in that direction for the sake of greed is just wrong and goes against everything the fans want.
I guarantee the movie would have performed better if they had kept the Shatner plot and stayed in line with what the franchise is supposed to be.
I admittedly have enjoyed The Kelvin Timeline, but its not real Star Trek, it's not Gene's vision and it is time for it to die.
According to that video, Paramount doesn't care about what the fans want. They want a lot of bums on seats, not a small number of passionate viewers. Ironically, the new movies aren't even...
and goes against everything the fans want.
According to that video, Paramount doesn't care about what the fans want. They want a lot of bums on seats, not a small number of passionate viewers. Ironically, the new movies aren't even delivering enough bums on seats.
Yea, I am understanding that more now after that video. Maybe it's time for CBS to tell them to kick rocks and either buy them back or disallow any future productions. Granted, I haven't been...
Paramount doesn't care about what the fans want.
Yea, I am understanding that more now after that video. Maybe it's time for CBS to tell them to kick rocks and either buy them back or disallow any future productions.
Granted, I haven't been extremely impressed with what CBS has done so far yet in their continuation of the main franchise. I like Discovery well enough, but I don't love it as much as I would like to. But, with Patrick Stewart's new show and the Starfleet Academy series in pre production I do like what CBS is doing.
It will nice to have multiple series running again, I just hope they are not all heavily action based and at least try and stick with more traditional Star Trek. Lol, kinda makes me sound like a grumpy old man I guess.
This grumpy old man agrees with you! I was interested to learn some details recently about the Star Trek copyright, and how it influenced the production of 'Discovery'. CBS licensed Paramount to...
This grumpy old man agrees with you!
I was interested to learn some details recently about the Star Trek copyright, and how it influenced the production of 'Discovery'. CBS licensed Paramount to make Star Trek movies, but a condition of the licence was that anything Paramount produced had to be tonally and visually different to the existing Star Trek properties owned by CBS. The Kelvin timeline movies had to be different to old Star Trek. Then, it turns out that, for some reason, rather than make 'Discovery' under their own copyright, CBS used Paramount's licence to make it - complete with the condition that it had to be tonally and visually different to the existing Star Trek properties. That meant that 'Discovery' also had to be different to old Star Trek.
I hope CBS is making Patrick Stewart's new show under their copyright, so it can be similar to old Star Trek.
I don't think that's accurate. Originally, Paramount owned the rights to Star Trek. Paramount was then bought by Viacom, which later also bought CBS. CBS then started producing Star Trek shows for...
I don't think that's accurate. Originally, Paramount owned the rights to Star Trek. Paramount was then bought by Viacom, which later also bought CBS. CBS then started producing Star Trek shows for Viacom, while Paramount made movies, which made sense because CBS was a television company and Paramount was a movie company. Viacom then split up. Movie rights stayed with Paramount, but the Star Trek property went to CBS.
So CBS doesn't license Star Trek movie rights to Paramount, Paramount legally owns them, as they always have. I haven't heard about stipulations about tone or about CBS somehow using the film rights that Paramount owns to make a TV show though. Do you have a source for that information?
I know a little bit about the corporate ownership of Star Trek: it's a pet project of mine. :) And, most of what you say is right. In fact, it's the same story I've been telling people for the...
I know a little bit about the corporate ownership of Star Trek: it's a pet project of mine. :)
And, most of what you say is right. In fact, it's the same story I've been telling people for the past decade or so.
However, I recently learned I was wrong about the licensing issue, after watching this video.
Interesting. Thanks for the info! Where'd you see the part about CBS's Discovery having to be tonally different from TOS though? I watched a little bit from the video you linked at the timestamp,...
Interesting. Thanks for the info!
Where'd you see the part about CBS's Discovery having to be tonally different from TOS though? I watched a little bit from the video you linked at the timestamp, but didn't see it mentioned. Is it later on in there?
I forget. I watched a few videos by Midnight's Edge a couple of weeks ago, and they all blend into each other in my memory (especially because there was a bit of overlap in the content of the...
I forget. I watched a few videos by Midnight's Edge a couple of weeks ago, and they all blend into each other in my memory (especially because there was a bit of overlap in the content of the various videos), so I don't know exactly which video (and which time in the video) I got that information from. It's hinted at here, though.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. There is no way there is actually a good reason for doing that. I also hope for a return to the older format, well at least the TNG/DS9/Voyager...
rather than make 'Discovery' under their own copyright, CBS used Paramount's licence to make it -
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. There is no way there is actually a good reason for doing that.
I also hope for a return to the older format, well at least the TNG/DS9/Voyager look and feel of Trek.
It would really be unfortunate if we are denied that because of ridiculous copyright.
Also, It's been bugging me for a while because I could swear I recognize your username but I couldn't place it. Then you linked one of your posts on /r/DaystromInstitute and it clicked. I have been subbed there for like four years I feel dumb.
Unfortunately the video I heard that in didn't say why CBS chose to make DSC this way (and, as I already told someone else, I forget exactly which video I heard it in). Maybe there was a good...
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. There is no way there is actually a good reason for doing that.
Unfortunately the video I heard that in didn't say why CBS chose to make DSC this way (and, as I already told someone else, I forget exactly which video I heard it in). Maybe there was a good reason. If I had to guess, it might be related to the agreement which CBS made with Paramount when issuing the licence to make the Kelvin movies, that CBS wouldn't make any television series for a period of 10 years - and maybe the only way around that restriction was for CBS to make its series via Paramount's licence...? It doesn't even look credible as I'm typing it, but it is just my uninformed guess. :)
Maybe that 10-year period has expired or is about expire, considering that the first Kelvin movie was released 9 years ago. Maybe CBS is no longer restricted from making its own television series any more. Maybe. (I can speculate with the best of them!)
<waves> Hi there! :)
Daystrom isn't the only place I've been active on Reddit, but it has been one of my favourite places on Reddit since we opened it 5+ years ago.
As much as I love the Star Trek philosophical tradition, as of now, the reboot had a net profit of $ 676.6 million (box-office minus estimated cost, Wikipedia values). That's a 43% profit. It's...
As much as I love the Star Trek philosophical tradition, as of now, the reboot had a net profit of $ 676.6 million (box-office minus estimated cost, Wikipedia values). That's a 43% profit. It's not Avengers, but enough to keep things are they are.
The Kelvin Timeline films are pretty bad Trek for a host of reasons, but not being Gene's vision isn't necessarily one of them. DS9 was pretty radically divergent from the themes of earlier Trek...
I admittedly have enjoyed The Kelvin Timeline, but its not real Star Trek, it's not Gene's vision and it is time for it to die.
The Kelvin Timeline films are pretty bad Trek for a host of reasons, but not being Gene's vision isn't necessarily one of them. DS9 was pretty radically divergent from the themes of earlier Trek series, but it's very highly regarded.
Yes it 100% is. DS9 was a different format, but was still set in the same universe and upheld the same ideals as the other shows. It just differs because it was stationary and involved more...
but not being Gene's vision isn't necessarily one of them.
Yes it 100% is.
DS9 was pretty radically divergent from the themes of earlier Trek series
DS9 was a different format, but was still set in the same universe and upheld the same ideals as the other shows. It just differs because it was stationary and involved more politics (because it was stationary). There is nothing wrong with that.
The format is not at all what I'm talking about, and I don't think it showcased quite the same ideals as earlier series. Roddenberry pushed the utopia angle for the federation very hard, to the...
DS9 was a different format, but was still set in the same universe and upheld the same ideals as the other shows. It just differs because it was stationary and involved more politics (because it was stationary). There is nothing wrong with that.
The format is not at all what I'm talking about, and I don't think it showcased quite the same ideals as earlier series. Roddenberry pushed the utopia angle for the federation very hard, to the point where, in early TNG when he was still active in the show's development, he wanted to forbid plots hinging on interpersonal conflict amongst the crew, since it clashed with the idea of the Federation as a society that had it all figured out.
DS9 showed us a Federation that assassinated a Romulan senator, had a military coup, and had a secret intelligence agency that used biological weapons in an attempted genocide, among other things. Completely different vision for the characters' roles in the universe than Gene's holier-than-thou federation of the morally superior that we saw in TNG. And that's okay. Better than okay, DS9 had some of the best writing of any Trek series, and as a whole, I think it's the one that holds up best today.
What's not okay is thoughtlessly pasting the names of Trek characters over your mindless summer action blockbuster in a shameless nostalgia cash grab. If they'd been their own IP, the Kelvin timeline movies would've been decent enough if ultimately forgettable action flicks, but the way they basically just used the Star Trek setting as window dressing is highly disrespectful to the franchise to say the least.
CBS has the rights to all of TOS with the exception of the movies. They also retain the rights to all TOS memorabilia. So no, I don't think they were unable to use it. Discovery is similar to some...
the TOS Enterprise ship is legally Paramount's
CBS has the rights to all of TOS with the exception of the movies. They also retain the rights to all TOS memorabilia. So no, I don't think they were unable to use it. Discovery is similar to some of the other ships from that era, like Enterprise (NX-01), which is interesting because that was Paramount. And the version of the Enterprise that appeared in Discovery was only slightly altered.
How would Tarantino's version of Star Trek be better than what we already got? The existing Kelvin movies were already too violent and too non-Trek-like, and I can't imagine Tarantino making...
How would Tarantino's version of Star Trek be better than what we already got? The existing Kelvin movies were already too violent and too non-Trek-like, and I can't imagine Tarantino making anything less violent and more Trek-like.
That doesn't explain how it'll be better than anything we've already got. Just because you describe someone as "an established auteur", that doesn't automatically mean they're suited to making...
Because it's going to be Tarantino's take on Star Trek.
That doesn't explain how it'll be better than anything we've already got. Just because you describe someone as "an established auteur", that doesn't automatically mean they're suited to making every single movie. How would you like to see a Walt Disney version of 'Reservoir Dogs' or an Orson Welles version of 'The Sound of Music'? Every director has their own strengths, and those strengths don't necessarily suit all genres.
Whether the fans would like it or not, I couldn't care less.
So are you! You're judging it to be a good movie when you don't know anything about it. So, if Walt Disney had said he was suited to make 'Pulp Fiction', you'd be fine with that?
You're judging a movie that hasn't even come out yet.
So are you! You're judging it to be a good movie when you don't know anything about it.
The auteur himself decided that he is suited to make said movie. That is enough to qualify him to make the movie.
So, if Walt Disney had said he was suited to make 'Pulp Fiction', you'd be fine with that?
The remakes peaked at Into Darkness, that was a pretty damn good movie. Maybe I think so because I watched it before the old counterpart which was a bit like B movie. Beyond indeed smelled Marvel...
The remakes peaked at Into Darkness, that was a pretty damn good movie. Maybe I think so because I watched it before the old counterpart which was a bit like B movie. Beyond indeed smelled Marvel and the "classic music" accompanied scene was hilarious.
TOS remakes can retire. A Voyager movie though... Just some dreams
If by "peaked", you mean "reached the peak of horribleness", I agree with you! :) I think 'Into Darkness' is the worst Star Trek movie ever made - yes, worse than 'Final Frontier' and 'Nemesis'....
The remakes peaked at Into Darkness, that was a pretty damn good movie.
If by "peaked", you mean "reached the peak of horribleness", I agree with you! :) I think 'Into Darkness' is the worst Star Trek movie ever made - yes, worse than 'Final Frontier' and 'Nemesis'.
Beyond indeed smelled Marvel
And this might be one reason I disliked 'Into Darkness'. Star Trek is not a comic book franchise. It is a different beast and should be treated differently.
The movie isn't like The Motion Picture of course (I like them about the same much) but it has its own theme of maturing, learning responsibility and forgiveness. In losses and victories the...
The movie isn't like The Motion Picture of course (I like them about the same much) but it has its own theme of maturing, learning responsibility and forgiveness. In losses and victories the iconic crew develops its first strong bonds. The ending speech is pretty solid. The lens flares and fast pace... well, times changed and Trek changed too, no one dares making another TMP in the 21st century. Which is a pity, such a slow grandiose movie would be jaw dropping with modern tech.
'Into Darkness' also parodied one of the best movies in the Trek franchise. The decision to have 'Into Darkness' be a remake of 'Wrath of Khan' killed the movie. They shoehorned a character into...
'Into Darkness' also parodied one of the best movies in the Trek franchise. The decision to have 'Into Darkness' be a remake of 'Wrath of Khan' killed the movie. They shoehorned a character into this movie that simply didn't need to be there. They tried to copy the emotional arc of 'Wrath of Khan' without earning it. When Kelvin-Kirk is dying after saving the ship, he and Kelvin-Spock have to say the same lines that Prime-Kirk and Prime-Spock say at the end of 'Wrath of Khan'. However, Prime-Kirk and Prime-Spock have the weight of two decades working together and saving each other's lives and being brothers when they come to that scene. It means something. Meanwhile, Kelvin-Kirk and Kelvin-Spock have been working together for less than a year, and they don't even like each other: that issue about what happened the planet at the beginning of the movie demonstrated that. So, it gets awkward when they get to the "I have been, and always shall be, your friend." part of the death scene. Because they haven’t been; they have not been friends. This movie is trying to borrow an emotional depth that it hasn't earned.
And, Khan? Really? That movie could have been so much better if they'd simply kept Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison, a man who was manipulated by Admiral Marcus. There was absolutely no need to use Khan Noonien Singh in that movie. Again, they were trying to borrow a depth they hadn't earned. In 'Wrath of Khan', Khan's wrath was earned: he'd been marooned by Kirk on a desolate planet for 20 years, and had nurtured his hatred of Kirk for that time. He wanted revenge. Meanwhile, the recently reawakened Khan in 'Into Darkness' had none of that history.
'Into Darkness' tried to borrow its depth from another movie, rather than earning it.
And, as for an emotionally deranged Spock beating Khan's head to a bloody pulp... that's just a slap in the face to Trek fans everywhere. "Let's take the most iconic character of the franchise and undermine him entirely by turning him into the opposite of everything he stands for." Fuck that.
I’m not sure where in this thread to post this but here are my thoughts on the future of Trek. I think both the TOS and TNG characters have run their course. I’m not keen on seeing any more of...
I’m not sure where in this thread to post this but here are my thoughts on the future of Trek.
I think both the TOS and TNG characters have run their course. I’m not keen on seeing any more of Kirk or Picard. I say this as a huge fan of Picard in particular, but I’m very skeptical about the new show in the works. I love Patrick Stewart and the whole TNG cast and I’d prefer to see their legacy remain untarnished. I admit there are ways it could be done well but I don’t have confidence in TPTB to do it. Meanwhile the Kelvin movies need to stop, the Marvelization has gone far enough.
I don’t really know anything about this Tarantino project. I could be open to the idea if it didn’t involve any known Trek characters or storylines. The ST universe is big enough that there’s room for finding new, unrelated stories with different tones and genres. I’m not opposed to that as long as they’re not just going back to the same well over and over again. I think that, professionally, Tarantino is capable of bringing the right amount of thoughtfulness to the project and I respect his talents. That said (and I don’t follow this stuff closely so forgive the generalities) I believe he has been implicated in some #meToo scandals and may prove to be a toxic choice to associate with the Star Trek brand.
I have only seen a few episodes of Discovery so I can’t comment much there. I will say that I’m generally fatigued by grimdark TV and really want to see a return to heroic idealism, particularly for Trek. At this point it would be a breath of fresh air. Additionally, I would like to see an end to this prequel mania and a return to forward-moving sequels and side stories. Lastly on this topic, CBS All Access is a transparently anti-consumer abomination that needs to die immediately.
For future shows, the only existing Star Trek property I’d be interested in revisiting is Voyager. I would be open to a reboot of the series that is willing to take chances the original was afraid to. No magic reset button at the end of every episode. No more nerfed Borg. No Kazon. Actually keeping track of things like limited photon torpedoes. Higher stakes, close calls, a ship that is visually falling apart over time and being jerry-rigged with alien components. So much wasted potential that could be corrected.
I’d also be open to another show on a station. Deep Space Ten? Don’t reboot DS9 but find new material with a new cast of characters somewhere else in space.
Has anyone here seen The Orville? Surprisingly, that show is scratching my itch for classic Star Trek in a way none of the official offerings have been able to do. Like any first season, it’s a little rough around the edges, but there’s a ton of room for it to really mature moving forward. I highly recommend it!
How'd you like Year of Hell? I'd heard that it was originally intended to be a full season thing. If they had stuck to it, I really think that could've been Voyager's Growing the Beard.
For future shows, the only existing Star Trek property I’d be interested in revisiting is Voyager. I would be open to a reboot of the series that is willing to take chances the original was afraid to. No magic reset button at the end of every episode. No more nerfed Borg. No Kazon. Actually keeping track of things like limited photon torpedoes. Higher stakes, close calls, a ship that is visually falling apart over time and being jerry-rigged with alien components. So much wasted potential that could be corrected.
How'd you like Year of Hell? I'd heard that it was originally intended to be a full season thing. If they had stuck to it, I really think that could've been Voyager's Growing the Beard.
Orville is perfect successor for star trek. It´s like TNG but with bit more comedy vibe. Jokes are actually funny. Alien races are good and interesting and different from others I have seen....
Orville is perfect successor for star trek. It´s like TNG but with bit more comedy vibe. Jokes are actually funny. Alien races are good and interesting and different from others I have seen. Character have great chemistry between themselves. Storylines on episodes are good and thought provoking. No SJW injections, so you can forget all real world comparisons to politics mostly.
All of Discovery is readily available on TPB and every other major host. Don't give those fuckers a dime. NO. That's the main things I don't like about Discovery. One of the biggest continuing...
CBS All Access is a transparently anti-consumer abomination that needs to die immediately.
All of Discovery is readily available on TPB and every other major host.
Don't give those fuckers a dime.
No magic reset button at the end of every episode.
NO. That's the main things I don't like about Discovery. One of the biggest continuing themes in Star Trek is that every episode is its own story and can stand on its own. Sure, there are some continuing themes throughout and some episodes are two parters. But I am sick of them trying to force the format of the show into having a story that branches the whole season. I would hate Voyager if it were like that.
That is not what Trek is and it should never be that way.
And then there's the six-episode arc at the beginning of Season 6 of DS9, not to the mention the multi-episode finale for that series! DS9 is a big exception to the idea that Star Trek is episode...
some episodes are two parters
And then there's the six-episode arc at the beginning of Season 6 of DS9, not to the mention the multi-episode finale for that series! DS9 is a big exception to the idea that Star Trek is episode and not serialised. I agree that DSC went too far towards serialisation, but I also don't think we need a fully episodic series.
DS9 had a weird hybrid approach to this that I don’t think was entirely successful. Some of the best episodes of that series stand alone, but on the whole it’s the long Dominion War arc that I...
DS9 had a weird hybrid approach to this that I don’t think was entirely successful. Some of the best episodes of that series stand alone, but on the whole it’s the long Dominion War arc that I remember most vividly, and that really kept me on the edge of my seat. Personally I’d prefer if they just chose one (episodic or serial) and stuck with it. But I could’ve gone either way, both could have been good choices.
On the contrary, I liked DS9's hybrid approach combining stand-alone episodes with ongoing story arcs. I also liked it in 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer', and I'm liking it in 'Supergirl'. A series...
On the contrary, I liked DS9's hybrid approach combining stand-alone episodes with ongoing story arcs. I also liked it in 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer', and I'm liking it in 'Supergirl'.
A series that is all stand-alone episodes can get a bit boring. If you press the "reset" button all the time, then it gets a bit repetitive and lacks development.
A series that is all serialised episodes can get a bit tedious. It's just one big long story, dragged out over too many hours.
This is one area where I’m fine with each series finding its own distinctiveness. They don’t all need to have the same tone, follow the same characters, or adhere to the same kind of storytelling....
One of the biggest continuing themes in Star Trek is that every episode is its own story and can stand on its own.
This is one area where I’m fine with each series finding its own distinctiveness. They don’t all need to have the same tone, follow the same characters, or adhere to the same kind of storytelling. I’d say that for their premises, TOS and and TNG were best suited for episodic stories. Those were both about a ship traveling here and there, exploring, encountering new situations and adventures. That doesn’t mandate a particular continuity.
Voyager, on the other hand, has a stated goal from the very first episode: a 70-year journey home. In my opinion that would benefit greatly from a serialized progression that carries the crew nearer to that over time, and allows them to change and adapt to their situation in meaningful, lasting ways.
My point is, I don’t think either episodic or serialized stories is a cornerstone of what Trek is really all about, and a series should choose the right tool for the job at hand.
No Kirk no problem: a TAS episode The Slaver Weapon didn't feature the captain and it wasn't bad. Actually it's written by Larry Niven and features Kzinti from the Ringworld universe. Just imagine...
No Kirk no problem: a TAS episode The Slaver Weapon didn't feature the captain and it wasn't bad. Actually it's written by Larry Niven and features Kzinti from the Ringworld universe. Just imagine new Star Trek 4 where the Enterprise boldly goes without captain Kirk... to the Ringworld!
The script they scrapped for Star Trek 3 was scrapped because it was "a little too Star Treky"?
Are they serious?
So instead of staying true to Gene Roddenberry's vision (and what the fans want) they opt to make it a competitor for the Avengers. Star Trek is not an action series and it shouldn't be, pushing it in that direction for the sake of greed is just wrong and goes against everything the fans want.
I guarantee the movie would have performed better if they had kept the Shatner plot and stayed in line with what the franchise is supposed to be.
I admittedly have enjoyed The Kelvin Timeline, but its not real Star Trek, it's not Gene's vision and it is time for it to die.
According to that video, Paramount doesn't care about what the fans want. They want a lot of bums on seats, not a small number of passionate viewers. Ironically, the new movies aren't even delivering enough bums on seats.
Yea, I am understanding that more now after that video. Maybe it's time for CBS to tell them to kick rocks and either buy them back or disallow any future productions.
Granted, I haven't been extremely impressed with what CBS has done so far yet in their continuation of the main franchise. I like Discovery well enough, but I don't love it as much as I would like to. But, with Patrick Stewart's new show and the Starfleet Academy series in pre production I do like what CBS is doing.
It will nice to have multiple series running again, I just hope they are not all heavily action based and at least try and stick with more traditional Star Trek. Lol, kinda makes me sound like a grumpy old man I guess.
This grumpy old man agrees with you!
I was interested to learn some details recently about the Star Trek copyright, and how it influenced the production of 'Discovery'. CBS licensed Paramount to make Star Trek movies, but a condition of the licence was that anything Paramount produced had to be tonally and visually different to the existing Star Trek properties owned by CBS. The Kelvin timeline movies had to be different to old Star Trek. Then, it turns out that, for some reason, rather than make 'Discovery' under their own copyright, CBS used Paramount's licence to make it - complete with the condition that it had to be tonally and visually different to the existing Star Trek properties. That meant that 'Discovery' also had to be different to old Star Trek.
I hope CBS is making Patrick Stewart's new show under their copyright, so it can be similar to old Star Trek.
I don't think that's accurate. Originally, Paramount owned the rights to Star Trek. Paramount was then bought by Viacom, which later also bought CBS. CBS then started producing Star Trek shows for Viacom, while Paramount made movies, which made sense because CBS was a television company and Paramount was a movie company. Viacom then split up. Movie rights stayed with Paramount, but the Star Trek property went to CBS.
So CBS doesn't license Star Trek movie rights to Paramount, Paramount legally owns them, as they always have. I haven't heard about stipulations about tone or about CBS somehow using the film rights that Paramount owns to make a TV show though. Do you have a source for that information?
I know a little bit about the corporate ownership of Star Trek: it's a pet project of mine. :)
And, most of what you say is right. In fact, it's the same story I've been telling people for the past decade or so.
However, I recently learned I was wrong about the licensing issue, after watching this video.
Interesting. Thanks for the info!
Where'd you see the part about CBS's Discovery having to be tonally different from TOS though? I watched a little bit from the video you linked at the timestamp, but didn't see it mentioned. Is it later on in there?
I forget. I watched a few videos by Midnight's Edge a couple of weeks ago, and they all blend into each other in my memory (especially because there was a bit of overlap in the content of the various videos), so I don't know exactly which video (and which time in the video) I got that information from. It's hinted at here, though.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. There is no way there is actually a good reason for doing that.
I also hope for a return to the older format, well at least the TNG/DS9/Voyager look and feel of Trek.
It would really be unfortunate if we are denied that because of ridiculous copyright.
Also, It's been bugging me for a while because I could swear I recognize your username but I couldn't place it. Then you linked one of your posts on /r/DaystromInstitute and it clicked. I have been subbed there for like four years I feel dumb.
Unfortunately the video I heard that in didn't say why CBS chose to make DSC this way (and, as I already told someone else, I forget exactly which video I heard it in). Maybe there was a good reason. If I had to guess, it might be related to the agreement which CBS made with Paramount when issuing the licence to make the Kelvin movies, that CBS wouldn't make any television series for a period of 10 years - and maybe the only way around that restriction was for CBS to make its series via Paramount's licence...? It doesn't even look credible as I'm typing it, but it is just my uninformed guess. :)
Maybe that 10-year period has expired or is about expire, considering that the first Kelvin movie was released 9 years ago. Maybe CBS is no longer restricted from making its own television series any more. Maybe. (I can speculate with the best of them!)
<waves> Hi there! :)
Daystrom isn't the only place I've been active on Reddit, but it has been one of my favourite places on Reddit since we opened it 5+ years ago.
As much as I love the Star Trek philosophical tradition, as of now, the reboot had a net profit of $ 676.6 million (box-office minus estimated cost, Wikipedia values). That's a 43% profit. It's not Avengers, but enough to keep things are they are.
The Kelvin Timeline films are pretty bad Trek for a host of reasons, but not being Gene's vision isn't necessarily one of them. DS9 was pretty radically divergent from the themes of earlier Trek series, but it's very highly regarded.
Yes it 100% is.
DS9 was a different format, but was still set in the same universe and upheld the same ideals as the other shows. It just differs because it was stationary and involved more politics (because it was stationary). There is nothing wrong with that.
The format is not at all what I'm talking about, and I don't think it showcased quite the same ideals as earlier series. Roddenberry pushed the utopia angle for the federation very hard, to the point where, in early TNG when he was still active in the show's development, he wanted to forbid plots hinging on interpersonal conflict amongst the crew, since it clashed with the idea of the Federation as a society that had it all figured out.
DS9 showed us a Federation that assassinated a Romulan senator, had a military coup, and had a secret intelligence agency that used biological weapons in an attempted genocide, among other things. Completely different vision for the characters' roles in the universe than Gene's holier-than-thou federation of the morally superior that we saw in TNG. And that's okay. Better than okay, DS9 had some of the best writing of any Trek series, and as a whole, I think it's the one that holds up best today.
What's not okay is thoughtlessly pasting the names of Trek characters over your mindless summer action blockbuster in a shameless nostalgia cash grab. If they'd been their own IP, the Kelvin timeline movies would've been decent enough if ultimately forgettable action flicks, but the way they basically just used the Star Trek setting as window dressing is highly disrespectful to the franchise to say the least.
Just to clarify, the Tarantino Trek movie would still be made by Paramount and I believe it would have to take place within the Kelvin timeline.
CBS has the rights to all of TOS with the exception of the movies. They also retain the rights to all TOS memorabilia. So no, I don't think they were unable to use it. Discovery is similar to some of the other ships from that era, like Enterprise (NX-01), which is interesting because that was Paramount. And the version of the Enterprise that appeared in Discovery was only slightly altered.
How would Tarantino's version of Star Trek be better than what we already got? The existing Kelvin movies were already too violent and too non-Trek-like, and I can't imagine Tarantino making anything less violent and more Trek-like.
That doesn't explain how it'll be better than anything we've already got. Just because you describe someone as "an established auteur", that doesn't automatically mean they're suited to making every single movie. How would you like to see a Walt Disney version of 'Reservoir Dogs' or an Orson Welles version of 'The Sound of Music'? Every director has their own strengths, and those strengths don't necessarily suit all genres.
Ah. The Paramount approach!
So are you! You're judging it to be a good movie when you don't know anything about it.
So, if Walt Disney had said he was suited to make 'Pulp Fiction', you'd be fine with that?
Please no. I don't want his weird violent cynicism near Trek.
The remakes peaked at Into Darkness, that was a pretty damn good movie. Maybe I think so because I watched it before the old counterpart which was a bit like B movie. Beyond indeed smelled Marvel and the "classic music" accompanied scene was hilarious.
TOS remakes can retire. A Voyager movie though... Just some dreams
If by "peaked", you mean "reached the peak of horribleness", I agree with you! :) I think 'Into Darkness' is the worst Star Trek movie ever made - yes, worse than 'Final Frontier' and 'Nemesis'.
And this might be one reason I disliked 'Into Darkness'. Star Trek is not a comic book franchise. It is a different beast and should be treated differently.
The movie isn't like The Motion Picture of course (I like them about the same much) but it has its own theme of maturing, learning responsibility and forgiveness. In losses and victories the iconic crew develops its first strong bonds. The ending speech is pretty solid. The lens flares and fast pace... well, times changed and Trek changed too, no one dares making another TMP in the 21st century. Which is a pity, such a slow grandiose movie would be jaw dropping with modern tech.
'Into Darkness' also parodied one of the best movies in the Trek franchise. The decision to have 'Into Darkness' be a remake of 'Wrath of Khan' killed the movie. They shoehorned a character into this movie that simply didn't need to be there. They tried to copy the emotional arc of 'Wrath of Khan' without earning it. When Kelvin-Kirk is dying after saving the ship, he and Kelvin-Spock have to say the same lines that Prime-Kirk and Prime-Spock say at the end of 'Wrath of Khan'. However, Prime-Kirk and Prime-Spock have the weight of two decades working together and saving each other's lives and being brothers when they come to that scene. It means something. Meanwhile, Kelvin-Kirk and Kelvin-Spock have been working together for less than a year, and they don't even like each other: that issue about what happened the planet at the beginning of the movie demonstrated that. So, it gets awkward when they get to the "I have been, and always shall be, your friend." part of the death scene. Because they haven’t been; they have not been friends. This movie is trying to borrow an emotional depth that it hasn't earned.
And, Khan? Really? That movie could have been so much better if they'd simply kept Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison, a man who was manipulated by Admiral Marcus. There was absolutely no need to use Khan Noonien Singh in that movie. Again, they were trying to borrow a depth they hadn't earned. In 'Wrath of Khan', Khan's wrath was earned: he'd been marooned by Kirk on a desolate planet for 20 years, and had nurtured his hatred of Kirk for that time. He wanted revenge. Meanwhile, the recently reawakened Khan in 'Into Darkness' had none of that history.
'Into Darkness' tried to borrow its depth from another movie, rather than earning it.
And, as for an emotionally deranged Spock beating Khan's head to a bloody pulp... that's just a slap in the face to Trek fans everywhere. "Let's take the most iconic character of the franchise and undermine him entirely by turning him into the opposite of everything he stands for." Fuck that.
I’m not sure where in this thread to post this but here are my thoughts on the future of Trek.
I think both the TOS and TNG characters have run their course. I’m not keen on seeing any more of Kirk or Picard. I say this as a huge fan of Picard in particular, but I’m very skeptical about the new show in the works. I love Patrick Stewart and the whole TNG cast and I’d prefer to see their legacy remain untarnished. I admit there are ways it could be done well but I don’t have confidence in TPTB to do it. Meanwhile the Kelvin movies need to stop, the Marvelization has gone far enough.
I don’t really know anything about this Tarantino project. I could be open to the idea if it didn’t involve any known Trek characters or storylines. The ST universe is big enough that there’s room for finding new, unrelated stories with different tones and genres. I’m not opposed to that as long as they’re not just going back to the same well over and over again. I think that, professionally, Tarantino is capable of bringing the right amount of thoughtfulness to the project and I respect his talents. That said (and I don’t follow this stuff closely so forgive the generalities) I believe he has been implicated in some #meToo scandals and may prove to be a toxic choice to associate with the Star Trek brand.
I have only seen a few episodes of Discovery so I can’t comment much there. I will say that I’m generally fatigued by grimdark TV and really want to see a return to heroic idealism, particularly for Trek. At this point it would be a breath of fresh air. Additionally, I would like to see an end to this prequel mania and a return to forward-moving sequels and side stories. Lastly on this topic, CBS All Access is a transparently anti-consumer abomination that needs to die immediately.
For future shows, the only existing Star Trek property I’d be interested in revisiting is Voyager. I would be open to a reboot of the series that is willing to take chances the original was afraid to. No magic reset button at the end of every episode. No more nerfed Borg. No Kazon. Actually keeping track of things like limited photon torpedoes. Higher stakes, close calls, a ship that is visually falling apart over time and being jerry-rigged with alien components. So much wasted potential that could be corrected.
I’d also be open to another show on a station. Deep Space Ten? Don’t reboot DS9 but find new material with a new cast of characters somewhere else in space.
Has anyone here seen The Orville? Surprisingly, that show is scratching my itch for classic Star Trek in a way none of the official offerings have been able to do. Like any first season, it’s a little rough around the edges, but there’s a ton of room for it to really mature moving forward. I highly recommend it!
How'd you like Year of Hell? I'd heard that it was originally intended to be a full season thing. If they had stuck to it, I really think that could've been Voyager's Growing the Beard.
Orville is perfect successor for star trek. It´s like TNG but with bit more comedy vibe. Jokes are actually funny. Alien races are good and interesting and different from others I have seen. Character have great chemistry between themselves. Storylines on episodes are good and thought provoking. No SJW injections, so you can forget all real world comparisons to politics mostly.
All of Discovery is readily available on TPB and every other major host.
Don't give those fuckers a dime.
NO. That's the main things I don't like about Discovery. One of the biggest continuing themes in Star Trek is that every episode is its own story and can stand on its own. Sure, there are some continuing themes throughout and some episodes are two parters. But I am sick of them trying to force the format of the show into having a story that branches the whole season. I would hate Voyager if it were like that.
That is not what Trek is and it should never be that way.
And then there's the six-episode arc at the beginning of Season 6 of DS9, not to the mention the multi-episode finale for that series! DS9 is a big exception to the idea that Star Trek is episode and not serialised. I agree that DSC went too far towards serialisation, but I also don't think we need a fully episodic series.
DS9 had a weird hybrid approach to this that I don’t think was entirely successful. Some of the best episodes of that series stand alone, but on the whole it’s the long Dominion War arc that I remember most vividly, and that really kept me on the edge of my seat. Personally I’d prefer if they just chose one (episodic or serial) and stuck with it. But I could’ve gone either way, both could have been good choices.
On the contrary, I liked DS9's hybrid approach combining stand-alone episodes with ongoing story arcs. I also liked it in 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer', and I'm liking it in 'Supergirl'.
A series that is all stand-alone episodes can get a bit boring. If you press the "reset" button all the time, then it gets a bit repetitive and lacks development.
A series that is all serialised episodes can get a bit tedious. It's just one big long story, dragged out over too many hours.
I like a combination of both.
I agree entirely, I think the best approach, especially for Star Trek is a hybrid format that involves stand alone episodes and long arcs.
This is one area where I’m fine with each series finding its own distinctiveness. They don’t all need to have the same tone, follow the same characters, or adhere to the same kind of storytelling. I’d say that for their premises, TOS and and TNG were best suited for episodic stories. Those were both about a ship traveling here and there, exploring, encountering new situations and adventures. That doesn’t mandate a particular continuity.
Voyager, on the other hand, has a stated goal from the very first episode: a 70-year journey home. In my opinion that would benefit greatly from a serialized progression that carries the crew nearer to that over time, and allows them to change and adapt to their situation in meaningful, lasting ways.
My point is, I don’t think either episodic or serialized stories is a cornerstone of what Trek is really all about, and a series should choose the right tool for the job at hand.
No Kirk no problem: a TAS episode The Slaver Weapon didn't feature the captain and it wasn't bad. Actually it's written by Larry Niven and features Kzinti from the Ringworld universe. Just imagine new Star Trek 4 where the Enterprise boldly goes without captain Kirk... to the Ringworld!
On other hand, Pine still expresses interest.