Star Trek Beyond ... and beyond

[Carol the Dabbler]

Just came across a couple of opinion pieces regarding the ST4 pay-cut face-off.

This one argues that recasting Kirk (or doing without the character) would harm the film's reception to the point where the studio would be better off just coughing up what they promised (and I tend to agree).

On the other hand, this one argues that the two Chrises should accept that pay cut.  While I may disagree with that, it makes one very interesting point that I had not thought of (and please note that *sigh* the final paragraph inside the quote box is my reaction to it):

Quote

It’s no secret that I’ve argued that the biggest problem with Paramount and Bad Robot’s rebooted Star Trek franchise is its top-tier blockbuster budgets. The films cost about as much as a mid-level Walt Disney MCU movie, and yet they have never come close to the $700 million-to-$1 billion global cumes of those films, to save nothing of Universal/Comcast Corp.'s Fast and the Furious sequels, Paramount's Mission: Impossible sequels or Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.'s much-debated DC Films flicks. Moreover, those blockbuster budgets and global aspirations require spectacle-filled action scenes, which detract from the character work and often annoy the hardcore fans.

 

Hey, if they can balance the budget by cutting those spectacular action scenes, that strikes me as a win-win scenario!

 

 

 

 

[Arcadia]

Those quote boxes are out to get you, aren't they? 😄 

I hope they don't cut too much from the action sequences. I was just watching an episode of Deep Space Nine, and my god all they did was talk, talk, talk. And talk. No wonder I could never get into that show. Actually, just before that was an episode of Next Gen and all they were doing was talking too. Yawwwwn.

I don't know, I loved the first two reboots, I thought they got the mix of action and ideas just about right. I do love to see space battles.  

What are "cumes?"

[Carol the Dabbler]

36 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Those quote boxes are out to get you, aren't they? 😄  

Apparently.  Though I believe I've seen other people having the same problem.  If only I could still toggle into plain-text mode and fix all of 'em. 

36 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

What are "cumes?"

At first I took that for a typo.  But I think it's industry-talk for something like "cumulative profits."

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just had a peek online to see if there might be anything new about ST4, and found this article, which includes this paragraph:

Quote

Speaking to our sources – the same ones who informed us The CW was developing an Arrow spinoff back in March and that Marvel was planning a She-Hulk show well before it was announced – We Got This Covered has been told that the studio will re-open negotiations once Wonder Woman 1984 is out in theaters. So, in other words, talks will begin again next summer, given that the DCEU pic arrives on June 5th, 2020.

It sounds to me like they're going to use the reaction to WW1984 to see how hot (or not) Chris Pine is these days, and then decide how serious to get about courting him.  What with all the new Treks now in development, this should be an opportune time for the next reboot movie, if they're ever gonna do it.

[Arcadia]

How hot (or not) has he been up to now?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Pine has been pretty popular lately, I think, what with the three Trek movies and Wonder Woman (and maybe some other things that I'm not aware of).  I'm not even a Pine Nut, but I doubt that I'd go see a fourth Trek movie if he wasn't in it, and the only reason I'd go see a new Wonder Woman that didn't have him in it would be that Alex likes Gal Gadot (or else if they figured out a way to bring Lucy Davis's character back -- I thought she was just terrific in the first one).

[Arcadia]

I liked him in the one with Denzel Washington, and that's the only other thing I've seen him in.

I would probably watch any remake of the original Trek, just because … y'know, nostalgia. I have zero interest in remakes of any of the other versions, oddly enough.

What if they came out with an entirely new version, tho? Set, I dunno, in 4143? Hmmm. Could be interesting. Except logic tells me, if it were truly realistic, I wouldn't understand a single thing that I saw or heard.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I would probably watch any remake of the original Trek, just because … y'know, nostalgia.

You mean like the reboots?  I like the nods to the original series, and the casting is generally very good.  But the plots (which I have trouble finding amid all the EXCITEMENT!!!!!) don't feel like Trek to me.  Most of the original episodes (even the truly abominable ones) had what you could call a moral, a point, for heaven's sake.  In my opinion, the first reboot was basically just setting up the new timeline, with a bad guy who was apparently just out for revenge.  The Khan reboot did have a moral, I think, but it felt to me like pretty much the same one as in the original-cast episode and movie.  And I can't offhand even remember what the third reboot movie was about, though I'm pretty sure I've seen it a couple of times.

Gimme The Devil in the Dark over that any day.

[Arcadia]

11 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

You mean like the reboots?  I like the nods to the original series, and the casting is generally very good.  But the plots (which I have trouble finding amid all the EXCITEMENT!!!!!) don't feel like Trek to me.  Most of the original episodes (even the truly abominable ones) had what you could call a moral, a point, for heaven's sake.  In my opinion, the first reboot was basically just setting up the new timeline, with a bad guy who was apparently just out for revenge.  The Khan reboot did have a moral, I think, but it felt to me like pretty much the same one as in the original-cast episode and movie.  And I can't offhand even remember what the third reboot movie was about, though I'm pretty sure I've seen it a couple of times.

Gimme The Devil in the Dark over that any day.

If by reboots you mean the Chris Pine versions, I loved the first two, hated the third one (I don't remember a thing about it either, except that I didn't like it.) I don't have any trouble thinking of them as two different universes, if you see what I mean, so they both feel like Trek to me, just from a different viewpoint.

If I had to choose between the original series or the reboot movies, I'd choose the original series, for much the reason you give. But … if I had to choose between the original movies or the reboot movies … I'd choose the latter. I think the reboots captured the spirit of adventure and wonder the original series gave me. Watching the original movies was more like an obligation (apart from Wrath, which was great) to see the story through to its end, rather than any appreciation of the works themselves.

At any rate, if another reboot of the original came along … yeah, I'd watch it. But a spin-off like Next Generation … not so much interest there, simply because none of the ones they've done ever brought me the same pleasure as the original.

I wanted to like Next Generation, I really did! I tried so hard. I watched every episode, year after year, almost until the very end. I admired Patrick Stewart as an actor. Data was kind of fun. But the only storyline I remember being genuinely moved by was when Picard was captured by the Borg, and the fallout from that in some of the following episodes. The rest of the time … even at the time, I found the new version awfully preachy. I just tried to ignore that aspect at the time and watched anyway, but when I see repeats now, I can seldom force myself to sit all the way through them.

DS9 I could never get into (boring! Where's the space battles! And if I never see another Ferengi I will be very happy.) Voyager wasn't bad, I stuck with it to the end. Enterprise, I think I saw 1.5 episodes and gave up. The ten or so minutes I saw of the latest version … meh.

But bring back Kirk and Co., and I'll be there.

[Carol the Dabbler]

10 hours ago, Arcadia said:

If I had to choose between the original series or the reboot movies, I'd choose the original series, for much the reason you give. But … if I had to choose between the original movies or the reboot movies … I'd choose the latter.

Yeah, I guess I would too -- assuming I'd already seen everything, and so could make an informed decision.  The original-cast movies (with one exception) were a great fix for Trek deprivation, but the reboot movies -- as long as I kinda ignore the plots -- feel like it's first season all over again.  As you say, the spin-offs don't do that, never did.

[Arcadia]

Some things are just magic that can't be recaptured again. There was something about that original set of Star Trek characters that just worked. The first set of Star Wars movies was the same way. Fairport Convention was never the same after Sandy Denny left. Etc.

[Caya]

Sometimes remakes work in their own way, though. The Addams Family movies, for instance.

[Arcadia]

Something else to add to my list of things to watch, I see...…  

[Carol the Dabbler]

According to Variety, the fourth reboot movie isn't dead.  They now have a different plot / screenwriter / producer, and are apparently assuming they'll be able to work things out with Chris Pine.  Not sure how much of this is still just rumor, though.

And has anyone heard about this other Trek movie that they mention?

Quote

This [....] is separate from another “Star Trek” pic that Paramount is developing with Quentin Tarantino producing and Mark L. Smith writing.

.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Apparently the "other" Trek film is still very much in the incubation stage, but that hasn't stopped fans from imagining it -- based on the filmmaker's previous work:

 

[Arcadia]

Can they fire Tarantino and hire Nerdist instead?