STAR TREK 13 News and Discussion

[Picard Sisko]

I think Bryan Singer's films are a little bland, so IDK if I would want him to make Star Trek. Alfonso could be a good choice.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Dont think Cuaron is doing big movies anymore after Gravity.

Kosinski would be an okay choice but I think he is busy with Tron 3. Danny Boyle would be a good choice but he doesnt tend to do these movies either. Its not an easy choice really.

 

[Picard Sisko]

What about Rupert Wyatt? Is he still an option?

 

[Octoberist]

I have a feeling the job will go to Matt Reeves eventually.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well he's directing 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,' so who knows? I liked Cloverfield, which he directed and was produced by JJ Abrams.

I think Matt Reeves could be a good choice. So let's make a list of possible directors:

1. Rupert Wyatt
2. Matt Reeves

Keep the list going, fellas!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I would be perfectly happy with both of those choices. Reeves especially, Cloverfield was great, and Let Me In was even better, one of my favourite movies of the last few years.

Loved Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes as well so either choice would be good for me.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Sony just confirmed that Alexander Kurtzman is directing the Venom spin-off film. This explains why he is dropping out of Star Trek.

 

[Picard Sisko]

One thing I like about keeping Roberto Orci is that there will at least be some connection to the previous films, but the two new writers will add something fresh to it. Does anyone wish there was a more solid plan for the future of this franchise though? I feel that if Paramount invested a little bit more into Star Trek, it would be a lot more successful especially now that it has better effects and a bigger budget.

I just wonder where this franchise plans on going after Star Trek 3. One movie at a time of course, but will they keep this same crew for more films or do something entirely different? Maybe skipping further into the alternate timeline with a new crew would help keep the franchise fresh. Part of what makes Star Trek great is its diversity. Each series/film is very unique in its own way, and I think that has to continue.

 

[Soapy]

I get the distinct feeling that no one has a definite plan of what to do with the series. I think Paramount HAD a plan; They wanted to turn Star Trek into a massive blockbuster franchise, but after both of their attempts at that underperformed somewhat, they're probably reassessing what they should do with it. Obviously there will be a third movie in the Abramsverse, but if that one underperforms as well, I think it's anyone's guess as to where things go next.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well I think they can continue making movie, just probably at a somewhat lower budget.

I think Paramount has to really market the films better. When I walk into a Toy store, I see merchandise for Star Wars, Marvel, DC, and more. But there is next to nothing for Star Trek. It took them forever to finally release a trailer for STID, and of course the movie came out 4 years after the 2009 reboot, so I think people lost interest over time.

The studio should at least try and plan more for the future of this franchise.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I get the distinct feeling that no one has a definite plan of what to do with the series. I think Paramount HAD a plan; They wanted to turn Star Trek into a massive blockbuster franchise, but after both of their attempts at that underperformed somewhat, they're probably reassessing what they should do with it. Obviously there will be a third movie in the Abramsverse, but if that one underperforms as well, I think it's anyone's guess as to where things go next.

Correction, Paramount was actually very happy with the returns of the 1st one, it didn't do great oversees but Star Trek never did well overseas really. At home though it was considered a blockbuster.

They however failed to build on that by waiting a full 4 years to come out with a sequel and a lackluster marketing campaign to boot. STID probably should have been their "TDK" for the franchise but missed the mark.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Maybe the third one can change that. Its coming out sooner (3 years) and they can hopefully market it better.

 

[Soapy]

They probably should have featured Khan in the marketing more. I know it would have ruined the "surprise", but it probably would have meant more money.

 

[Picard Sisko]

For me, the "surprise" was Admiral Marcus being the second villain.

 

[Soapy]

Yeah, same here, but they were obviously trying very hard to make it seem like there was some kind of mystery surrounding "John Harrison".

 

[Picard Sisko]

I actually thought the mystery would have worked really well if Entertainment Weekly didn't leak the character's real identity.

 

[bunk]

I think they should continue making Enterprise crew movies for as long as they can. It would be best if the movies aren't connected much, the way Bond movies traditionally were not connected. If actors want to move on, that's fine, just find a new Kirk or Bones when it's needed. Keep the characters from aging much, also in the vein of Bond movies. This is even easier with science fiction since you have complete control over the story settings. Bring in creative, up and coming film makers and let them shine.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I don't think the James Bond formula would work with Star Trek. That might work with other characters like Spider-Man or Iron Man for example, but with Star Trek, I think the best way to keep the franchise fresh is to actually show us a new crew.

It would be cool to see the 24th century in Abramsverse.

 

[Soapy]

No offense, but that sounds like a really terrible idea.

 

[Picard Sisko]

No offense, but that sounds like a really terrible idea.

Are you responding to my post, or bunk's?

 

[Soapy]

bunk

 

[bunk]

I don't think the James Bond formula would work with Star Trek. That might work with other characters like Spider-Man or Iron Man for example, but with Star Trek, I think the best way to keep the franchise fresh is to actually show us a new crew.

It would be cool to see the 24th century in Abramsverse.

Well if I could have whatever I wanted there would be different crews from different centuries, some not even belonging to Starfleet. The reality is, Trek's future is perpetually in doubt and the only thing keeping it financially viable is a fairly tenuous interest from non fans. So tossing out the characters that the average viewer is becoming familiar with and starting from scratch isn't the best bet. Don't forget, most of the audience hasn't been watching much Trek, so it's still new. No fresh start needed at this point. It would be different if they could make these movies on the cheap, then maybe you don't have to factor in a particularly wide audience.

 

[Picard Sisko]

If they can get non-Trekkies to love the 2009 film, they can get them to enjoy more movies with a new crew. As long as it has the "Star Trek" name and the trailers look amazing.

 

[bunk]

If they can get non-Trekkies to love the 2009 film, they can get them to enjoy more movies with a new crew. As long as it has the "Star Trek" name and the trailers look amazing.

Anything's possible. You make it sound very easy.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well I don't think changing the cast members is a good idea. Not for Star Trek at least.

Making more movies with a new crew may not necessarily be easy, but I think they really have no choice. Unless they reboot TNG, but that's not going to happen.