The Future of the Star Trek franchise
#102
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
I think Frakes (60) and Spiner (64) look pretty good for their ages.
#103
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
Did anyone watch the Reunification: 25 years after Star Trek TNG on the season 2 BD? The moderator asked the cast what is the likelihood they would be asked to do another TNG feature and they pretty much all said zero chance. The cast is too old now and everyone including Marina Sirtis said their ages are a factor.
#105
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
Well I didn't necessarily mean that they would have to just scrap the new cast all together. I understand they'll do more films featuring them. I just meant after Into Darkness I'm not that excited to see a new movie with that cast. In the past Star Trek programming has run concurrently so I was just thinking if they could do something like that. I'm sure the reunion for The Next Generation won't happen though.
#106
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
I love the new Trek universe... I loved the old Trek universe. I'd like to see this current timeline be extended out into a relaunch of TNG as well.
But I also feel that Trek is meant to be on TV.
But I also feel that Trek is meant to be on TV.
#107
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
As with the above poster, Trek thrives better artistically on television (with exception of the majority of Voyager and all of Enterprise).
All that can be done with Trek in theaters is just constant riffing on Wrath of Khan over and over and over. "In our next movie: a monolithically evil bad guy has a diabolical plan involving a doomsday device. The ending will leave an opening for our next movie which features a monolithically evil bad guy that has a diabolical plan involving a doomsday device".
Strangely TWOK, wasn't the highest grossing of the TOS movies--that was The Voyage Home. But The Voyage Home didn't involve 'splosions...so they'll steer clear of that.
All that can be done with Trek in theaters is just constant riffing on Wrath of Khan over and over and over. "In our next movie: a monolithically evil bad guy has a diabolical plan involving a doomsday device. The ending will leave an opening for our next movie which features a monolithically evil bad guy that has a diabolical plan involving a doomsday device".
Strangely TWOK, wasn't the highest grossing of the TOS movies--that was The Voyage Home. But The Voyage Home didn't involve 'splosions...so they'll steer clear of that.
#108
Banned by request
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
I disagree. That's not all that can be done with Trek on film. It's just the formula that's proven the most popular, and is easiest to write. Eventually someone will try something new, and it will change the way Trek films are made.
#109
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
I hope your right. Because it seems like 99% of all genre films are movies by fanboys for fanboys.
#113
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
I'd like to see another movie along the lines of ST:TMP... for whatever its flaws, it at least tried to be bold, epic, cerebral, bigger than "just" a Star Trek movie. No more glorified TV episodes (all the TNG movies, even the good one) or bombastic action flicks (the Abrams movies, as much as I love them).
I also want Linda Lavin.
I also want Linda Lavin.
#114
DVD Talk Hero
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
The OP is spreading a lot of misinformation.
First of all, this is all my opinion.
I doubt that Paramount is super happy with the performance of STID. The word is that they were hoping for a Dark Knight showing for the film. That's obviously not happening. If it finishes below or even slightly above what the 2009 movie made, expect the next one to get a lower budget. The international gross of STID is higher than the 2009 movie, so that is a bright spot.
Paramount has Pine under an option for 3 Trek films. I imagine they have the rest of the main players under a similar contract. So that's not an issue.
Paramount wanted STID out last year. They agreed to a delay because they wanted Abrams to direct it. With the underperformance of the picture, and with 2016 being the 50th anniversary of Trek, Paramount will want a movie that year. With Abrams' Star Wars scheduled for a 2015 release, no way can Abrams deliver a new Trek movie in 2016. Therefore, he's not directing the next one, although I see no reason why the writing team wouldn't remain (unfortunately.)
Finally, Paramount has no say over a new Trek TV series--CBS owns the television rights to Trek. CBS currently doesn't seem to have any interest in a new Trek series, being content to milk the original continuity through Blu-ray and other merchandising. Furthermore, if CBS did want to develop a new Trek TV series AND wanted it to be in the new continuity (two BIG ifs), they would have to work with Paramount and Bad Robot to make it happen, and word is, Abrams and Bad Robot don't get along with CBS.
The short of it is: there will be another Trek movie in 2016, directed by someone other than Abrams. There will be no new TV series for the foreseeable future.
As an aside, I think it was a mistake to give Trek to Abrams. Trek has never been a "big name" franchise, and giving it to him would be like if Spielberg had been given Star Trek II to direct. Trek is best with talented but workmanlike people at the helm. It's not flashy, nor should it be.
First of all, this is all my opinion.
I doubt that Paramount is super happy with the performance of STID. The word is that they were hoping for a Dark Knight showing for the film. That's obviously not happening. If it finishes below or even slightly above what the 2009 movie made, expect the next one to get a lower budget. The international gross of STID is higher than the 2009 movie, so that is a bright spot.
Paramount has Pine under an option for 3 Trek films. I imagine they have the rest of the main players under a similar contract. So that's not an issue.
Paramount wanted STID out last year. They agreed to a delay because they wanted Abrams to direct it. With the underperformance of the picture, and with 2016 being the 50th anniversary of Trek, Paramount will want a movie that year. With Abrams' Star Wars scheduled for a 2015 release, no way can Abrams deliver a new Trek movie in 2016. Therefore, he's not directing the next one, although I see no reason why the writing team wouldn't remain (unfortunately.)
Finally, Paramount has no say over a new Trek TV series--CBS owns the television rights to Trek. CBS currently doesn't seem to have any interest in a new Trek series, being content to milk the original continuity through Blu-ray and other merchandising. Furthermore, if CBS did want to develop a new Trek TV series AND wanted it to be in the new continuity (two BIG ifs), they would have to work with Paramount and Bad Robot to make it happen, and word is, Abrams and Bad Robot don't get along with CBS.
The short of it is: there will be another Trek movie in 2016, directed by someone other than Abrams. There will be no new TV series for the foreseeable future.
As an aside, I think it was a mistake to give Trek to Abrams. Trek has never been a "big name" franchise, and giving it to him would be like if Spielberg had been given Star Trek II to direct. Trek is best with talented but workmanlike people at the helm. It's not flashy, nor should it be.
#115
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
So, having seen the film now... what other options are there for the series? They should focus on one film at a time...make a great third one (like Skyfall) and pave the way for two more after that. I'd be happy with five films from this cast.
#116
DVD Talk Legend
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
I sort of expect at least one more film with the new cast. I kind of hope after that they're done though. The first one was fun enough as a throwback but the sequel just really didn't do as much for me and the effect of them trying to recapture the spirit of the original series just didn't work as well for me. I sort of hope they move away from that as soon as possible.
#117
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
Of the original cast, only DeForest Kelley and James Doohan have died. (And, of course, its creator, Gene Roddenberry.) Hopefully, the rest will make it to the 50th Anniversary of TOS in 2016. It would be nice to have as full a reunion as possible for a TV special that year.
And, amazingly, Shatner, Nimoy, and Takei are all still working and in the public eye. I'm not sure about Koenig and Nichols. (Am I forgetting anyone?)
And, amazingly, Shatner, Nimoy, and Takei are all still working and in the public eye. I'm not sure about Koenig and Nichols. (Am I forgetting anyone?)
#118
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A far green country
Posts: 5,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: The Future of the Star Trek franchise
Of the original cast, only DeForest Kelley and James Doohan have died. (And, of course, its creator, Gene Roddenberry.) Hopefully, the rest will make it to the 50th Anniversary of TOS in 2016. It would be nice to have as full a reunion as possible for a TV special that year.
And, amazingly, Shatner, Nimoy, and Takei are all still working and in the public eye. I'm not sure about Koenig and Nichols. (Am I forgetting anyone?)
And, amazingly, Shatner, Nimoy, and Takei are all still working and in the public eye. I'm not sure about Koenig and Nichols. (Am I forgetting anyone?)
#119
DVD Talk Limited Edition