Oh, get over yourself, it was meant to be an amusing nose tweak. We accept "lesser product" because we have the nous to recognise the system. Films that cost a lot to make have to make money to justify future risks of similar films, and those profits help fund other risks that may be loss making. The Star Treks and Star Wars of this world generally cost a lot of money to make. Sure, you can do canned, situational, films which cost a lot less, but you can only do so many of those without fans asking "where's the new worlds" or even "where's the space battles." And they cost. So yes, we accept in those instances Suits Will Interfere, usually to the detriment of plot quality, because their aim is to make money and, if they do, that benefits us as well - not only with further outings of our favourite franchises, but the possibility of supporting other movies we'll like that aren't designed to be tentpole crowdpleasers. That's basically the price for the industry and keeps tens of thousands in gainful employment. Also Michael Bay, but hey ho. There are those who can buck the trend - Nolan springs to mind - but they're rare, and usually lucky enough to have negative aspects of their more debatable works landed on others - see how Snyder copped the blame for the MoS complaints when it was very much a Nolan film. They're also not going to commit to a franchise long-term, mainly as they have their own playgrounds they want to show.
Says the guy who was neg repping me for criticising the lesser product that is Discovery. How can you object to those "accepting" a lesser product when you do so yourself based on your own subjectivity?
I have no idea what you're on about. I didn't say that I didn't have an opinion about what was good or bad, just that the point I was making here about studio profits was independent of it.
I used to agree in principle with that. But before CBS clamped down on them we were seeing fan made episodes made by average people (though some had experience in television and movie making) that easily rivaled official studio productions in quality such as those made by "Star Trek: Continues" and those productions certainly didn't cost a lot of money comparative to mainline studio work
I wonder how long the new Picard centered series will go before they have a big splashy Borg episode featuring him raving how how much he hates them for violating him?
As I understand it, STD is legally required to NOT be in the JJ universe. We had a discussion on one of my hobby boards that STD had to design a whole new Enterprise that was required to be at least 25% different in appearance from the JJ one.
Borg Queen- Violated? Tsh, he totally wanted it. Prancing around in that tight little uniform? Come on.
SJ Clarkson has moved on to the Game Of Thrones prequel, and ST4 is dead. http://www.darkhorizons.com/star-trek-4-shelved-by-paramount/
Now might be the time to let TOS RIP, and take any new film projects into the 25th Century going forward. I don't know how many more actors besides Nimoy I can handle playing Spock.
I don’t want to see a reboot, I want to see something new. The question is can Trek exist in movies without it being connected to one of the shows?
Let the continuity be with the ship itself. "These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise..." Give us a new Starship Enterprise, a completely new crew at the dawn of the new century post-Nemesis, and send them forth to explore strange new worlds- not save the Earth, the galaxy, the multiverse, or fight the $%#*%$#!* Klingons.
I think you use the new shows to rebuild from scratch. Let Discovery, or Picard Returns, or whatever, get 5-7 years old, get built out in continuity, get fan love, then everyone will be clamoring for a movie from it. Back in the day, people were slobbering for TOS movies, and TNG movies. There's no slobber right now.
If a reboot of TOS does happen, give us a movie version of the original Connie. We’ve yet to see that, JJprise doesn’t count.
Honestly, movies aren't the proper format for good Trek anyway. The best of the (before JJ) movies worked because they were based on a very extensive pre-existing foundation. Without that, too much of a feature film has to be used to set up the story in order to tell a great story. The only was to make a truly great Trek movie is to make a great series first, then use that as the backdrop to your film I would argue you could make a great film derived from DS9 but it's such a niche audience it would never be made.
IF there's a TOS cast reboot (I'm skeptical) Here's your Kirk And Spock Unless you take a decade in which case you can just use the Spock from Discovery
You could get it made if either a crazy billionaire fronted the cash, or you could find a way to make it for 20 million like "Glass".
Tarantino's film is still go. https://comicbook.com/startrek/2019/01/26/star-trek-quentin-tarantino-paramount-pictures/
I like Star Trek and I like Tarantino- I'm just not sure I'm ready for the two of them to get together.
