text:
All Access Star Trek
The Shuttle Pod Podcast
Noah Hawley's Star Trek Film
Tarantino Star Trek Film
Unproduced 4th Kelvin Movie
Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek (2009 film) Cast
Star Trek (2009 film) Creative & Crew
Star Trek (2009 film) Media
Trek Remastered
TOS Remastered
TOS Remastered Episode Guide – Season 1
TOS Remastered Station List
TNG Remastered
Privacy Statement & Legal Notice
What`s Hot
January 19, 2021 | CBS All Access Relaunches As Paramount+ In March
January 18, 2021 | 'Star Trek: Discovery' Cast and Showrunner Reveal More Season 4 Plans For Saru, Gray, And Owosekun
January 18, 2021 | Watch: Nichelle Nichols Tells The Story Of How Martin Luther King, Jr. Dissuaded Her From Quitting 'Star Trek'
January 17, 2021 | Gaming Update: 'Timelines' 5th Anniversary Event And 'Jetpack Joyride' Star Trek Crossover
January 16, 2021 | New Licensee EXO-6 Launching Line Of 1:6 Star Trek Figures Starting With 'First Contact' Data
Noah Hawley: Paramount Pulled The Plug On His Star Trek Film "Very Close To Production"
| December 1, 2020 | By: TrekMovie.com Staff 152 comments so far
Over the summer the news broke that Paramount had put Noah Hawley's Star Trek film project on hold. Now the writer/director has revealed how close that project was to becoming reality.
Hawley: Paramount wants to go in another direction
Speaking to Deadline after the season four finale of Fargo, Hawley briefly talked about his Star Trek project, indicating it's more than just on hold:
DEADLINE: And is Star Trek possibly still in the cards for you at the new Emma Watts-run Paramount or is that too on hold?
HAWLEY: It doesn't appear to be in my immediate future. I think when Emma came in, she took a look at the franchise and wanted to go in a different direction with it. But you know, life is long, we were very close to production but in this business that doesn't mean much. You got to get out of the gate to be in the race if you know what I mean.
News that Watts put "a pause" on Hawley's Star Trek film was first reported in August. Since then, Hawley has confirmed that his Star Trek film would bring in a new cast of characters and be less focused on action. He also indicated that Paramount now seems more interested in again trying to make Star Trek a tentpole success.
Pegg has no news on what's next
When Hawley's project was put on hold it was also reported that Watts was considering reviving the follow-up to Star Trek Beyond, which would bring back the Kelvin crew along with Chris Hemsworth as James T. Kirk's father. That project had previously stalled due to budget negotiations with Pine and Hemsworth, but earlier this year Chris Pine indicated he hoped to return to the captain's chair, and other members of the cast have also indicated they are ready to return to the Enterprise. However, in late October when asked about Star Trek and specifically about the Tarantino project, Simon Pegg told the Radio Times he didn't know what was going on:
"…when asked about the future of Star Trek, the pattering of rain on the thin roof is the only sound for several beats.
"I honestly don't know," he says finally. "I know Quentin's treatment is somewhat in the wind… It would be fantastic. But whether or not it happens, I don't know."
Sofia Boutella and Simon Pegg in Star Trek Beyond
Star Trek 2023?
Even though Emma Watts is reportedly getting Star Trek back as a big a priority for the studio, there is still no definitive news about it, but the studio has been moving forward on its other tentpole action franchises. Watts recently tapped a director to helm the next Transformers film, with more films planned tied to Hasbro properties including the GI Joe spin-off Snake Eyes. There are also two Mission: Impossible films lined up and even more Tom Cruise in next year's Top Gun: Maverick.
With the COVID pandemic pushing a number of projects, the studio is pretty set for 2021 and 2022, so even though Hawley's film was closing in on production, that does not mean once Watts and Paramount pick a way forward they will be rushing the next Star Trek project.
But hopefully, some news on what's next for Trek on the big screen comes soon. Until then, there is plenty of Trek lined up for Paramount+ on the small screen.
Keep up with Star Trek movie news and analysis at TrekMovie.com.
Tarantino Star Trek
Screenwriter For Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek Movie Says They "Had So Much Fun" With Kirk
Hawley Trek
Noah Hawley On The Challenge Of Making A Star Trek Movie With So Much Trek On TV
Interview, Upcoming movies
Interview: Jonathan Frakes Ponders The Future Of Star Trek Movies (And If He's Ready To Return To Direct)
Hawley Trek, Upcoming movies
Noah Hawley Wants To Make A Star Trek Movie That Isn't All About Action
Notify me of
DarExc
With so much Trek coming to streaming services, I don't think they should bring anymore movies for now….especially in the alternative universe which has nowhere to go anymore IMHO
There is more Trek around now than I ever imagined just 5 years ago. Let's not oversaturate it again and have another decade+ of darkness.
Reply to DarExc
I don't think it's in danger of being oversaturated with just 13-20 episodes per year. Furthermore Star Trek Enterprise didn't fail because of audiences feeling oversaturated.
Last edited 1 month ago by Jeff
Reply to Jeff
Keep in mind there will be more than 13-20 episodes now. Section 31 show, Pike show, Picard, Disco, Lower Decks and that kids show. Enterprise was at the end of a streak of TNG/DS9 overlapping with 52 episodes per year, followed by DS9/VOY. Voyagers ratings were on the decline which continued to the end of Enterprise.
ADeweyan
Exactly. Their plan is clearly to have new Star Trek content every week through the year, maybe with a week or two between the end of one show and the beginning of the next. All you have to do is see how the All Access membership numbers track with the availability of new Trek to understand why.
I researhed Enterprise for a video and the viewership numbers were wery interesting in comparison to Battle Star Galactica witch was regarded as a hit show. Galactica averaged 3 million viewers per episode. Enterprise in comparison aired just in 80% of the coverage Galactica did and had an average 4 million viewers per episode. Also the creators of the show and showrunners stated multiple times in various docks. Afterwards that UPN at that time had quite a young leadership who didn't understand Trek to the extent that when they pitched the episode with the Romulan mine attaching to the hull and pricing Reeds leg, they didn't understand what the hull of Enterprise was. Studio politics killed Enterprise.
Last edited 1 month ago by Awesomesauce
Reply to Awesomesauce
UPN was still free for that 80% of the country though, that was the difference, I think. The rest of the country would have needed cable to see UPN, just as they did Battlestar. The benchmark for success for broadcast series is a little higher than cable, which itself is higher than premium cable. Hence why so many series get dumped on the big 4 with numbers the CW or cable would salivate over. Of course, as broadcast's clout diminishes, those numbers keep on shrinking. What Enterprise was getting 15 years ago would probably secure it renewal on FOX these days.
You're right the network execs didn't really get Star Trek by 2001. They interfered in ways that led to the Temporal Cold War and Berman and Braga launching the ship before they initially wanted to that first season. I remember a note being discussed where the suits wondered if hot contemporary bands could be featured in the ship's mess hall to perform and liven things up.
Another thing Enterprise had against it was that it just no longer fit in with UPN's lineup. Network leadership could never ever find a way to capitalize on Voyager's success in a way that translated into other shows retaining its viewers. Remember Legend, Nowhere Man, Deadly Games, 7 Days, Level 9, The Sentinel, The Twilight Zone, Special Unit 2, The Burning Zone? Only a couple of those were any good and only a couple ever made it to a second season as well. So even since 1995 you had the network flailing for an identity. It couldn't rely on the Trek audience to watch on other nights so they appealed to urban audiences with sitcoms like Moesha and Girlsfriends, which was reliable for the network's entire lifetime. They tried going for young male demos with action shows and wrestling, then blue collar audiences with shows like Hitz and Dilbert, then young women with America's Next Top Model, Buffy and Veronica Mars… nothing quite worked perfectly, but they kept what stuck and made a hodgepodge schedule that eventually meant every night was programming to a completely different audience, and a Star Trek show with limited buzz didn't have a hope of getting any attention when it needed a boost in seasons 2-4.
While Voyager single-handedly carried UPN until about 1999, Enterprise sputtered quickly after a great start and couldn't find traction, getting buried in a crazy lineup on a network just trying to stay afloat.
Crazy thing if Enterprise was on today with the exact same ratings that it left with, it would be considered successful. That's also when DVRs were becoming a thing but it wasn't seen as important as it is today because my guess is they weren't factoring in advertising for it as they do now.
And while I do agree to an extent studio politics killed Enterprise, at the end of the day it was one of the costliest shows on with lower ratings. Reality shows that only cost a fraction got higher ratings so that was the other issue.
If Enterprise was on All Access today it would probably do the exact same numbers Discovery is doing now, which doesn't seem like a lot, but clearly enough since it's gotten to season 4. But I also think it's probably do well enough on Netflix as well and why it's easier to keep it going.
I come to really love Enterprise after not really being sold on it at the beginning, but I do wonder what kind of show it would be if Brannon got his way and it was done in the much different way he originally wanted it?
Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2
Reply to Tiger2
The Enterprise regret I have is Coto not having a chance to do what he was planning to do. He said there were a lot of ideas for them to do in the season 5 that never came. Ideas that to me sounded very intriguing.
Jose Bowsher
Reply to ML31
I agree! I'm an original Trekkie, 13 in 1966. LOVED TOS. But until the 2nd season of Discovery, Enterprise was my fave of all the ST series. I'd die happy, though, if we could have Kelvin 4, 5, 6 with those actors. I LOVED them.
I would count cartoons in a different sphere of saturation since they target different types of experience fulfillment. It would be like saying Star Wars was over saturated because there are cartoons being produced nearly all the time so the Mandalorian isn't worth the effort.
Blondie-Wan
I'm not sure why you separate "the cartoons" for targeting "different types of experience fulfillment" – don't all the shows do that? Lower Decks is different from either Discovery or Picard, but those shows are also different from each other, and all three will be different from Section 31, Prodigy, and Strange New Worlds, just as each of those three will differ from one another.
I thought section 31 was dead, with Strange New Worlds kind of the substitute since so many of us begged the studio for this Anson/Pike and Ethan/Spock series.
His Name Is Rios
It's a lot more than 13-20. We'll eventually have Discovery, Lower Decks, Prodigy, Picard, Section 31 and Strange New Worlds all going at the same time.
Reply to His Name Is Rios
Not counting the cartoons, do you think those
Discover S4
Picard S2
Section 31 S1
Strange New Worlds S1
…will all be released in the same year? That will be nice. I figured they would draw things out and maybe have two shows per year if we are lucky.
It was specifically reported some time ago that their goal was to reduce the churn. If it is, then releasing a mere two shows a year isn't going to accomplish that. Pretty much having no more than two weeks between shows will keep people subscribed.
Silvereyes
Apparently the compliment you made to Kayla in the other thread was not well received… Your post was deleted! Some people are way too sensitive and take innocuous things the wrong way unnecessarily. There was nothing wrong with what you said. It could have been taken as a bit condescending but your meaning was clear and it should have been taken that way.
The studio said, a few months ago, they want one series at a time, so that there is a ST series going at all times of the year.
By the end of this year, there'll have been 32 episodes of three different Trek series released in 2020.
I do think oversaturation may have played a role in the premature cancellation of Enterprise (though I'm sure it wasn't the only factor). By the time the fourth season finished, there'd been eighteen straight years of Star Trek, with twenty-five seasons of four different shows in those eighteen years (not to mention six movies in the same timeframe). For at least a few people – surely not all, but at least some – it was a bit much.
Reply to Blondie-Wan
The only complaints I ever heard about ST:Enterprise (and Voyager for that matter) was poor writing during the temporal cold war story lines. As soon as they moved back to traditional Star Trek style in season 4 everyone thought it was great (at the end when cancelation was already decided).
Now maybe the writers were getting burned out and wanted to do something different (like what happened with Star Gate Universe where they tried to make it like Battlestar Galactica), but writers going off and doing something no one likes is totally different than oversaturation.
I think if Enterprise started out like season 4 like it did in season 1, it would've been a big hit or at least a bigger one. It's literally how I feel about Discovery in season 3 now. If this show started out in the 32nd century with more classical Trek vibes it's portraying now it would've been faaaaaar less divisive than how it started for sure. It's not to say everyone would suddenly love it, but so many of the issues it started with wouldn't have existed at all, mostly the 'visual canon' issues. Now no one talks about those lol.
All I can tell you from a personal POV, as someone who watched every show loyally from TNG all the way through VOY with bells on, by the time ENT rolled around, I was a bit tired at that point personally. I got all the way through the first season but after that I didn't bother returning for the second and I imagine a lot of people.
Again, part of that was because I didn't think the first season was all that great, but I felt literally the same with TNG and DS9 and it never occured to me to ever stop watching those. In fact it's the opposite as they both became amazing shows. But with Enterprise I literally just stopped caring. The first time for a Trek show, ever! So yes it fatigue was certainly a big part of it, but also being a prequel (which I was put off with from day one) and feeling pretty bland from the start. Even after hearing it was improving, I just never had a real push to watch it again. It's crazy for me to say that now given I'm now paying for Star Trek shows I didn't feel has been any better than Enterprise in season one and I can't imagine abandoning them now. I thought first season of Discovery was much worse than season one of Enterprise, easily, but I never thought to stop watching it. But I also haven't had regular Star Trek since Enterprise ended so it's like getting a cup of water in a desert, even if it still tastes a bit stale and warm.
So it's not any one thing, but a number of factors. But my guess if I loved the show from the start I would've kept watching.
I will agree that Trek could have used a short break after Voyager. I liked the idea of Enterprise and was completely on board from the start but even I was thinking they should take a one or two year break. The franchise fatigue thing was very real.
I agree with that as well and what even Berman originally wanted. But you know, $$$$.
Now as I said I don't think fatigue was the only or even the MAIN reason why people tuned out. Because as I said if the show was just better on day one, people like me would've kept watching. Broken Bow got 12 million people to tune in, which is over 2 million who watched the first episode of Discovery on CBS, so clearly there was enough interest and curiosity. But the show didn't seem to hold them very long and after 15 years of Star Trek it was easier to not bother.
But you really seem to like Enterprise a lot. I knew you liked it but even more than I thought. Were you a big fan of it from the first season? Clearly you love it a lot more than Discovery lol.
I agree, I have not felt it being too much as this point, with less than 12 episodes per series, Picard and Discovery together barely more than a full season of TOS. I am not counting Lower Decks which I barely can watch. Sorry not passionate for DISC or Picard. Bring on a movie. Somehow I feel DISC is trying to hard to tell us how much the crew saved the universe and lives the ideals of the Federation instead of showing us. I can't get interested in knowing about the "Burn". Picard was mildly entertaining and I do enjoy Patrick Stewart. I am anxiously awaiting Strange New Worlds because Anson Mounts' Pike was the only character I cared about and am interested in seeing what happens to him.
VZX
I'm very excited for that Snake Eyes movie!
Anyway, I think that a small or mid budget Star Trek movie is the way to go. It does not have to tie in to the current Star Trek on TV, but it would be cool if it did.
I do think it should tie in to some kind of previous Trek, though. I'm just not sure how.
I am not losing sleep over this abandoned Hawley Star Trek. And the Kelvin-verse ship has sailed.
Faze Ninja
Reply to VZX
Don't care much for GI Joe sorry.
Vulcan Soul
"I am not losing sleep over this abandoned Hawley Star Trek"
I really wonder what is the purpose or supposed audience for this repeated, seemingly futile lamenting of the project's creator. Is he signaling to Kurtzman he's ready to turn his script into a limited tv series or tv movie?
Otherwise, he should well know (like a certain President) that "close" is still a failure ;)
Last edited 1 month ago by Vulcan Soul
Reply to Vulcan Soul
Keep politics out of Star Trek! I do not care what anyone's political beliefs are and I am frankly tired of all of the political sarcasms. Enough already! This is supposed to be a discussion about Star Trek. I do however agree with you that Hawley seems to like to discuss his involvement(or lack of) in his vision of a Star Trek movie. I probably am one of a minority of people who do not like Fargo. I have never seen Legion but nothing in Fargo encouraged me to check into seeing it. I for one am glad he got the boot.
Reply to lynn
I'd wholeheartedly agree but… everything is political at this point, no? Even the choice of guest star of the week. We may not want it, but they have thrown down the gauntlet on this!
I don't personally think that that shipped has sailed, I do think it was left hanging and deserves a completion.
Looks like Star Trek movies is on hiatus for awhile. I'm disappointed his movie didn't happen.
At least we have Paramount+ to look forward to. Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, SNW yes!
2023 is too optimistic of a timeline. Maybe at least 2025 at the earliest.
Last edited 1 month ago by Faze Ninja
Reply to Faze Ninja
2023 is too optimistic of a timeline.
Why? Into Darkness began filming in January 2012 and was released in May 2013.
Production start of the next Trek movie could be in early 2022 and easily be ready for Summer 2023. That means they still have a full year to decide what the next movie should be.
Plenty of time.
odradek
Don't forget Star Trek: Prodigy. That is the only show I'm looking forward to. Discorey, Lower Decks and Picard were disappointments for me. I expect the same for Strange New Worlds.
2023 would be a start date. That would have the movie hitting the big screen in late 24/early 2025. Assuming there are any big screens left.
Reply to Phil
I read it as premiere date in 2023, since 2022 is already booked for Paramount movies due to COVID-induced delays. Really, they've already waited four years, waiting three more before even starting? Why bother?
Reply to Thorny
For a 2023 premiere date, a movie would likely be in pre production now. At the moment Paramount doesn't even have a story….budget is always going to be the driver on these moving forward.
I still am hoping for a fourth Kelvin film, I know that is probably not the majority opinion around here but I enjoyed them.
Last edited 1 month ago by Andy
Reply to Andy
Plenty of people enjoyed them, the problem is with a start of production several years away this cast will have several members at or near 50. Bruce Greenwood was 53 when Trek 09 hit the big screen. Chris Pine will be 45 in five years, and he's one of the younger actors.
Mike Thompson UK
Well, we will be on NCC1701A
Look at William Shatner's age when The Wrath of Khan was filmed. He was no spring chicken and that movie seems to be one of the all time favorites. Hate to tell you but 45 is not old. I think DeForrest Kelly was the oldest of the originals which would probably also coincide with the ages of the current cast(Karl Urban vs. Chris Pine) so I do not see your reference to their ages being a problem. Bruce Greenwood was killed in the second movie so his age is immaterial.
When they made WOK, the five year mission was well in the rear view mirror, Shat Kirk had been promoted to Admiral and had been riding a desk for quite a while. When we last saw Pine Kirk, he was in year three of the five year mission. Make up (and in Shat's case, girdles) can smooth over the lines, but if the Kelvin cast comes back nine or ten years later, you're not going to be plunking then into year four or five of the five year mission. I'm not saying I don't want this cast back, but continuity does matter.
I think it is still possible with this crew. Obviously the 5 year mission might be a moot point but if you remember Shatner got the Enterprise back at the end of The Voyage Home as part of his demotion from Admiral to Captain. And if they do time a time travel Star Trek, anything is possible. As you said makeup and movie magic can make just about anything happen.
I actually wouldn't mind some closure to Kirk's arc. Something like Kirk in TWOK, where he's older and more experienced. I think for this Kirk, seeing him as a family man might be interesting, and might help him with his daddy issues.
Reply to Ashley
Shatners Kirk was basically an aged action hero, with mixed results. As the Kelvin timeline was divergent, it wouldn't bother me one bit to see an older Kirk, maybe still in the service of the Federation but post-Starfleet, a bit more introspective, a family man, coming to grips with what his later years may be.
Last edited 1 month ago by Phil
"post-Starfleet, a bit more introspective, a family man, coming to grips with what his later years may be."
Gee, isn't that what Picard promised us (if you count two Romulan ex-agents and an attack dog as family ;)? And we've seen how well that worked out!
albatrosity
I still feel cheated we didn't get to see more of Number One, especially after being in all the promo posters..
Yes, did not want another restart, looking forward to another Pine and co movie
I did also and as stated in a previous comment would like to see at least closure to these movies. I remember reading in an article about using the Kelvin timeline to somehow connect to the timeline on TV. Not sure if this is even possible.
Told you so. It'll be 2025 at the earliest for a return to the big screen. Assuming there are any left.
T.boyle
Wouldn't mind if they just let him be a showrunner on a tv series with his new characters. Fargo is a pretty great show.
Bryant Burnette
Reply to T.boyle
The obvious solution, so obviously it's the one Paramount won't be taking.
Reply to Bryant Burnette
Well why not?
Kurtzman has more than shown that he's comfortable with a wide range of big talents and big personalities.
He's also shown himself open to experiments.
McMahan basically walked in with ideas for a Short Trek and an animated series and was handed an office to develop it.
If Hawley's movie concept and script could be reworked into a 6-episode streaming miniseries, perhaps it could be workable and the costs could be amortized into something profitable.
Reply to TG47
Plus he could explore his characters more on a tv show than a two hour movie.
alphantrion
I don't think a new Top Gun would be successful in this day and age. This has the potential to be the biggest flop of Tom Cruises career. We've seen before in properties like Independence Day or Blade Runner that legacy sequels that come 20-30 years later don't really work very well. I mean we probably won't even have a box office to talk about. I think Paramount needs a property that can be certain success for them and Star Trek and Mission İmpossible seem to be these properties. (Ironic considering both originated as 60s TV shows)
Reply to alphantrion
Paramount did have success with Transformers, but that well dried up when people realized how much better the Marvel movies were for the same type of thing. It's ironic that Paramount was Marvel Studio's first distribution partner before Disney.
Paramount also used to make a lot of good comedy movies back in the day, but not much recently. Para also lost the Indiana Jones rights. So, yeah, they pretty much have just MI and Trek now. I'm hoping that Snake Eyes is good and restarts the Joe franchise, but actually with quality this time.
Marvel Studios was under Paramount before Disney buys Marvel and now control the rights. Indiana Jones is Disney because of Lucasfilm. Disney buys up everything. Paramount is not lucky at all.
MI and Transformers are Paramount's viable franchise's. They (likely) turned a profit on Bumblebee, because they kept the budget under control and made a watchable movie. Like it or not, the last three Trek movies, while generating a lot of revenue, were combined break even projects. Not acceptable for a studio that wanted Trek to make Star Wars money. I've said it before, when someone steps up and agrees to make a Trek movie (post Coronavirus world), for 100MM, one will get made. . Until then, enjoy CBSAA.
I just looked at Bumblebee's box office. It was nowhere close to what the previous Bay films did, but it still made $470 million but only cost $130 million to make, so it was clearly a big success. Just not a huge hit like the previous films.
The money Bumblebee did probably was a much bigger success than any of the Kelvin movies. I mean STID is the biggest film out of the the three and made about what Bumblebee did, but it also cost $190 million, so it didn't nearly profit as much.
Every time these articles come up and why we are still NOT talking about the next Trek movie in production yet, this is precisely the problem. They just never made the money they were expected to do given their crazy budgets. Especially when the studio just made tons more with their other properties with much smaller budgets. MI 4 made twice the money Beyond did but with a budget $40 million less than that and that was released in 2011. The following two MI movies made even more than the last one and still with budgets under what the Kelvin movies cost.
That's why Pegg is filming two more of those back to back while the Kelvin movies stall for the fifth year in a row. Those movies just never got out of the gate Paramount was hoping for after the first one while the MI and Transformer movies have all made the studio a solid profit, just more ebbs and flows.
Neither one of those franchises has ever bombed, just may not have reached expectations with some of their films.
The days of Transformers movies being billion dollar box office draws are over. Recall that I'd mentioned that the suits would likely be watching Bumblebee closely, if it turned a modest profit on a modest budget, that'd likely be the model for Trek moving forward.
The X-Men franchise is a good example here. A good chunk of those projects were somewhere in the 125-135MM budget range, and made 350-450MM. Not spectacular, but with aftermarket sales money makers. Trek can do that, but it was never, ever going to make Marvel or SW money.
I wouldn't go that far about the TFs movies yet. Yes maybe people have soured on the Bay movies but Transformers is still a big viable franchise. It will just depend on what direction they with it. Right now they decided to take the smaller approach which is probably a good thing. Bumblebee was a much smaller film on purpose.
I agree though, that's the direction they should be taking the next Star Trek movie. And my guess is both the Tarantino and Hawley movie probably was going that direction and more moderate versus the others. I don't see either of them making a $200 million Star Trek movie.
That's a fair point on the TF movies, maybe discussed over one of Kayla's cocktails…. :-)
LOL those cocktails do look yummy! Thanks to covid I haven't had a real drink in months being mostly a social drinker.
It's a shame Paramount will not make a Bumblebee sequel, I really liked that movie! It's like they don't understand that they can make a lot of money off of smaller budgeted movies. Look at the recent Invisible Man: a $7 million budget but a $130 million BO! Like Simon Pegg said, Paramount will not produce a Star Trek or Bumblebee movie unless it makes Marvel money per film. It is very short-sighted.
I heard Paramount just announced another Transformers movie, but not a Bumblebee sequel. It will probably be more like the Bay movies, unfortunately.
These are two completely different franchises than Star Trek. MI does not need CGI to produce a picture. Stunt men and women are I guess cheaper than CGI. Transformers probably does use CGI but my guess is to a lesser extent. I personally love watching the CGI but could give up a lot of it for a good script.
Actually the MI movies have tons of CGI, just not as obvious as it is in Star Trek. Yes there are lots of practical stunts and stuff but Tom Cruise isn't jumping off all those buildings in real life either.
As far as Transformers, there is no movie WITHOUT CGI lol. Do you think those robots are really there? They have a few prop robots in certain scenes but 90% of what we see are CGI, not to mention all the crazy involved with them.
And Star Trek movies used to be cheaper than MI movies. Remember the first Mission Impossible movie came out when FIrst Contact did in 1996. MI was around $70 million at the time (wow) but FC was only around $45 million. So yes I agree these movies need a healthy budget but it doesn't need a $200 million either like the last two. You can certainly do them cheaper at least.
I do agree with you that a cheaper Star Trek movie is possible. Star Trek developed its fan base without all of the CGI that is rampart today. And I am aware that CGI is being used in these franchises(MI and Transformers) but not to the degree that it is used in the Star Trek movies. I think that CGI is awesome but I could live with less to get a good ST movie.
I actually think Transformers is still a big viable franchise for them. Yes Transformers 5 did the worst with the Bay films, it still made $600 million. But it was a far cry from the billion dollars the two previous films did, so it got a reboot with Bumblebee basically. But Hollywood is such a weird place sometimes. Both the Spider-Man movies and now Pirates of the Caribbean got or will get reboots because the last films were considered 'flops'.
All the bad word of mouth Amazing Spider Man 2 got, it still made $700 million, one of the biggest highest grossing movies of that year.
Disney is remaking POTC because that movie was considered a 'disappointment' and part of the reason Depp is getting replaced but POTC 5 still made $800 million. But people treat it like its a pariah lol. It's so odd.
But it's also why I think the Kelvin movies are done as well. None of these movies I mentioned above were flops. Quite the opposite, they actually all did well BO wise. It's just the expectations of what the studio was hoping for and because they didn't do as well as the previous films.
That's literally what happened with Beyond. What many people forget is they had expected Beyond to do more than what STID. They wanted the film to get over $500 million minimum. According to Pegg himself, they were hoping it rose closer to Marvel levels of money. May not expected it, but was clearly hoping it could reach those heights.
Not only did it not get anywhere close to STID, it basically bombed in the process. Of course part of that was Paramount's own doing with how badly the film was marketed. Ironically trying to make the first trailer feel like something closer to a Marvel film probably just scared off more people than enticed them. But the film itself just didn't really drive non-hardcore fans to see it either and here we are.
But it's pretty clear Hawley's film was going to go in a new direction completely because Beyond just didn't do what it needed to do. Sure they tried to go forward with the Hemsworth movie but clearly that budget was going to be slashed to bits if they didn't even want to pay him or Pine their original price. So I just think those movies are done. Paramount is not giving up on its IP no more than Sony or Disney gave up on Spider Man or POTC, they just decided on a different direction.
My guess is whenever we see more Star Trek films it will be the same…for the fourth time.
Do you really think Johnny Depp is getting replaced because the films were a "disappointment"? I think it is more because the guy is more toxic than Toxic Avenger these days.
No, that's the ONLY reason obviously, another was Depp was getting too expensive as well and why the budgets were ballooning.
As for his other issues, sure, I get that too, but Disney still made FIVE POTC movies with the guy and several others like Alice in Wonderland and Lone Ranger. So it's not like they didn't know what he was like before. He's been working with the company for a long time now.
I just think Depp is too toxic to come anywhere near a big blockbuster these days. I like him as an actor but I feel like Disney would have continued with him in the role of Jack Sparrow had "other" elements were not involved. Remember we are talking about a role here that had originally nominated Depp for an Oscar back in the day.
I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm only saying when the money was flowing in it was pretty easy for people to look the other way as I imagine they have for many actors and situations like this in the past. But since he got booted off the next Fantastic Beasts movie, I think the bad press is really catching up to him and the abuse allegations has made things harder for him.
I don't really keep up with any of it besides what I see in a headline so don't pretend to have a real opinion on it. But if it's true, it's amazing so many of these people have so much money and fame with millions of people who worship them and they still have to be a dick to others.
Not only both 60s TV shows, sold in the same WEEK by Herb Solow! (Thanks Trekmovie for posting that incredible interview with him!)
I know people. And those people hear very specific things. And those things are not looking good for a new trek movie for a while. I know that's cryptic. Sorry. It's disappointing because I would love to see new Star trek on the big screen. Basically those in charge of such things know that the movies are too expensive. Specifically the actors are asking for too much. None of that's new but for me it was confirmed. Plus the feeling is that with so much content right now (they are thrilled with the TV side) there is no desire from fans or need for a movie. Maybe someone will change their minds but I'm pretty sure they consider the Chris Pine Treks dead for now (and all the others) and they are not telling anyone.
JRT!
Reply to Done
Obviously there is a desire from some fans,me included.
Reply to JRT!
Me too. One more solid adventure would be nice. A new journey would be too. What I've heard comes from high up but there's even higher. Who knows maybe they will change their mind. But if it is done I would like for them to tell people.
Maybe after a few years they make a disco movie with a reasonable budget and connect it all.
I was thinking (this doesnt come from the info I heard but more so what makes sense) it costs so much for them to producer a 2 1/2 hour movie. 150 million budget plus advert… for that same production budget they can get 14 hours of disco or picard or strange new worlds. If they feel the thirst is quenched from all the TV stuff I kind of get it financially.
noraa
I wouldn't mind seeing a "final" Kelvinverse film. With the rumors circulating about Chris Hemsworth reprising his role as Jim Kirk's father, I envisioned the movie being about Jim traveling back in time to both prevent his father's death and prevent the incursion by Nero thus restoring the Prime timeline, and essentially wiping out the Kelvinverse.
AZBlue
Reply to noraa
As much as I absolutely love the Kelvin films, and don't want that timeline to be over, your idea would be a nice ending for that crew. Tying up the loose ends, and giving the actors the closure that they want, and probably need after losing Anton. I still want to see concepts of what the TNG era ships would've looked like, and especially Deep Space 9/Terok Nor itself.
Frankly, prevent this, prevent that, I hope we never see that kind of storytelling again, for its not just a narrative failure but a moral one too (for Discovery, banning time travel, however clumsy the in-universe rationalization, therefore was one of the better choices for season 3).
This is not how the real world works like and its not what science fiction is about. It's even below fantasy. It's a fairy tale. Star Trek should be about battles of wits and hard work and sacrifice leading to a better tomorrow, not cop-outs and deus ex machinas that do not inspire but only frustrate, for we full well know there is no road from here to there!
Disinvited
With time dilation rampant at impulse speeds, it is impossible to ban forward time travel, so an "all" time travel ban is silly.
All Federation vessels capable of reaching relativistic impulse speeds can accomplish the same time jump forward as Discovery. There's nothing "special" about Discovery having achieved it.
PeachesXtream
Seeing as how The Mandalorian is thoroughly trouncing Disco/Picard on the small screen, it makes sense for Trek to take another stab at big screen success. The Rise of Skywalker killed off the Star Wars movie franchise for awhile.
But the Avatar sequels are probably going to fill that big screen sci-fi void in the next few years. Trek has no hope of competing with those budgets. And a small-medium budget Trek movie has no hope of breaking a billion at the box office like Paramount wants.
Reply to PeachesXtream
Avatar sequels and Star Wars are Disney so Disney is beating Star Trek right now.
The Rise of Skywalker was a mistake. It did killed off the Star Wars movie franchise for a few years. Disney knew it all along.
I've never been as angry and disappointed leaving a theater as I was with Rise of Skywalker. What a terrible movie and way to close out that storyline.
Yeah it was really really bad. I still have no idea what Disney or Abrams were thinking??? You thought STID was bad, that feels like a masterpiece in story telling now.
I hated it so much I've only listened to the score once … and I've got nearly 200 John Williams albums on disc. THAT'S how much I hated that movie.
Never saw a MATRIX sequel, huh? With only momentary exceptions and maybe half of TFA, post-EMPIRE SW big-screen filmmaking has pretty much all been a disappointment.
On the other hand, THE MANDALORIAN has absolutely fulfilled everything I might have wanted to see in SW in just a few short episodes, and I'm looking forward to binging s2 shortly (after rewatching the first batch yet again.) But rather than limiting SW's prospects to small-screen, I'm thinking this creative and financial success will create a new more viable model for SW movies, hopefully with a very similar mindset.
I so wish TREK had somebody (Hawley?) with a valid POV for TREK going forward and storytelling skills to match that vision. (Wow, after I wrote that sentence, I realized that if I posted anywhere that allowed a thesis statement under their posts, this would be it.)
But what's funny is TROS still made a billion dollars, its not like the movie bombed lol. Solo is the only Star Wars movie that bombed AND it probably would've at least broke even if they didn't go back and reshoot 80% of the thing.
And as bad as Solo did, yep, it still made more money than Beyond by $50 million. That's a disaster for a SW film. For a Star Trek film, that would've been considered a success lol.
skyjedi
Rise of Skywalker was a success. It made a good sizeable profit for Lucasfilm/Disney. Solo was the only Star Wars film that has ever failed at the boxoffice as long as you don't count the Clone Wars movie or Episode I 3D.
Reply to skyjedi
Solo cratering was enough to give the suits at Disney pause to reevaluate what they were doing. For what they paid for the franchise, everything they make needs to do a billion at the box office. You'll never see Disney make a SW movie on a 130MM budget, and then be happy with 400MM in revenue.
Thoroughly trouncing? lol! Seems quite a few people aren't happy with season 2 of Mandy. I agree with two things they say,that he's no longer the main character in his own show,and that the to get info he needs he has to help someone first episodes got really old and boring superfast. Season 1 was so incredibly good! Something's missing in season 2.
the new kid
I think we'll see Pine and the crew back by 2023 with a new script that's yet to be determined.
Reply to the new kid
I hope we get a Star Trek movie in 2023 but that won't happen.
Is that the official word?
tezna
Seriously there was still belief this was happening?
Reply to tezna
No, but a reporter asked him the question, he responded and it made news. Remember only Trek geeks follow this stuff like gospel. Most people out there (ie everybody else) probably has no clue what is happening with these movies at all. I'm sure many just think another Kelvin movie is coming down the pike any day now when we know that's not close to reality anymore.
"coming down the Pike"
I see what you did here! ;)
Not the Kelvin one though unfortunately!
LOL, I swear it wasn't intentional.
Hawley is a bit of a flavor of the month, which is not helping. Legion is over, Lucy in the Sky bombed financially and critically, Fargo Season 4 was the worst reviewed yet. He's no longer the IT creative in town.
Reply to Ian
And to add to your point while I liked Legion at the beginning, after a while it felt like crazy just for crazy sakes.
Still haven't watched season 3 yet but I did like the first two seasons. But for some reason I have not been motivated to watch the last one yet. It does feel like crazy for crazy sakes though.
I agree. By the end I was just watching for the occasional inspired scene and my pent-up love of Dan Stevens.
Georgiou's Sass
Trying to make Star Trek a blockbuster franchise just doesn't work.
Iconian
I believe the big screen movie theatre is basically going extinct the way of DVD's & physical media. There will be a niche market but nothing like opening weekend events. COVID has put that type of venue into retirement. I personally know families that have lost loved ones to COVID that say never again to going to a movie theatre. Also the Trek movies have been terribly formulaic with much hype over bland stories that are empty and of little interest. Trek works much better on TV. Now with so much Trek on TV it really is everywhere. Where's the need for a movie? I don't see it.
Reply to Iconian
I agree that the industry is shifting, but do you really think people would never go back to a big screen again post-COVID? Movies are part of our lives in a fundamental way. Going to the movies is an experience we've all had. Just because we're mired in a pandemic now doesn't mean the appetite for these things goes away. Yes, the industry will look different, but movie theaters going extinct? I honestly can't see it. By 2022, this will all be behind us…minus the loved ones we lost along the way.
Jeffrey S. Nelson
A Quentin Tarantino Star Trek film would be fantastic. I hope it gets the green light.
Reply to Jeffrey S. Nelson
Not only is it dead, but rigor mortis has set in.
Tarantino basically said almost a year ago now he's no longer interested in doing a Trek movie. And since they are not exactly moving heaven and earth for his screenplay to at least get made, I think everyone has moved on.
Now that David Cronenberg is involved with the franchise, I'd rather see his version of a Trek movie. Can you imagine his take on the Borg? Just thinking about it makes me shudder.
I agree alphantrion.
Cronenberg might offend some, but he would be more rooted in the kind of sci-fi stories that fit with the franchise.
That said, he's more into psychological stories now. His fencing with Georgiou in his role as Kovich is well aligned with his more recent work.
Seeing a psychological horror flavor of Trek show would still be leaps and bounds above the generic action meets soap opera shlock they now serve us on Discovery!
i'mpaul
Historically I was supportive of the Kelvin Timeline, even when I had mixed feelings about it. Over the years I've come to hate it. Star Trek feels at home on CBS — even when I have mixed feelings about it. I really hope we've seen the end of the Kevlin Timeline and would like to see Star Trek (as cinema) sync with CBS Trek. I don't know exactly what the movie would be about. Maybe the burn?
Reply to i'mpaul
God, I hated KELVIN right out of the gate and only BEYOND has worked for me, despite how the story drags in the middle and especially the endless climax. But CBS has taken the worst qualities of KELVIN, especially the insane visual style and boring-safe-yet-stupid design, and managed to do equally bad storytelling.
Honestly, the only good thing to come out of TREK for me this century has been Pike, in both incarnations (Greenwood's death scene floored me, and Mount is just, well, so much better, infinitely better, than his material.) Oh, and DNeg's BEYOND spaceship stuff was closer to what I would expect from a modern blockbuster in this day and age. Find the vfx on CBS to be criminally unappealing, except for the critter in season 1 DSC. Their idea for space and lighting spaceships is enough to make me wish for late 60s LiS, which is something I've never ever wished for (except that great crash shot in the pilot!)
Reply to kmart
It's true, Greenwood was an excellent Pike, and essentially brought the character back from "the dead" as he was merely a footnote in the history of Trek until he came along. And I'm also forced to agree that the space VFX in CBS Trek are just so, so underwhelming. Enterprise had better visual effects, IMO. And I'm one of the few TOS purists who prefers the original FX, and I think even those are more compelling than the stuff I see today.
Reply to albatrosity
And this is very sad really as Trek used to pride itself on the quality of its space shots and the visual effects (TMP Spacedock scene still takes my breath away). From there to barely seeing what is going on in the new shows, it just doesn't make sense.
Original TOS gets a sense of sunlight on the hull, that there is a hard key light. THAT alone gets those shots further along than the modern ones. I absolutely do not understand the aesthetic being used at CBS, and that's even after spending 25 minutes on the phone with Jason Zimmerman! It isn't the fault of the vendors being used, you can see superb work from every single one of them … but you have to change the channel to do so.
I suppose you can knock TOS by saying there is still that same hard key lit look when they are out in deep space, far away from a star, but what would you do instead? If you had a black silhouette flying through a starfield in the 60s, people wouldn't have been able to see anything on a 13″ set, especially in B&W. They'd've thought their picture tube went out.
(funny story. My folks finally got a color TV in 1971, so when TOS started syndicating in Bay Area, I was able to watch it in color. However our Zenith had a picture tube problem, so one time the entire picture shrunk down to about a 1/2-inch high across the middle of the screen. So for a couple of days, any time we turned on the set, it was like seeing that 'edge of the galaxy' effect from WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, because all you had was a colorful line of activity.)
Obviously none of this is a surprise at this point. I thought this was made pretty clear a few months ago when he said the movie was on hold. It's interesting he said it was pretty close to production though. Oh well.
But I think in all honesty now that Star Trek is back on the small screen in a big way, there is not a big push to get a film made. When it was only the Kelvin films and nothing else, it felt like a HUGE deal. Now as others have stated, the TV shows is basically expanding Trek to a level a movie just does not feel needed right now. And I think for a lot of hardcore fans, they are much happier to see people like original actors play their roles again like Picard, Seven, Riker etc than just watch all new faces in new roles on the big screen.
And I think it's really interesting both Star Trek and Star Wars kind of had this weird parallels to each other in the last few years. Both franchises were considered 'dead' for awhile until they both got revivid with big movie features (both helmed by JJ Abrams), with TONS of fanfare and sort of where I at least thought the franchises were going to basically stay at for a long time, certainly SW at least. Both got tons of fanfare as 'back to basics' since both ended in kind of a ho-hum way. I also thought it was crazy both ROTS and Enterprise ended in 2005.
Then the sequel got released (TLJ and STID) and it only went downhill from there lol.
But now, both franchises have turned to streaming as basically the near future of both franchises as they both (probably) will make 30 freaking shows in the decade while the movies are up in the air at the moment. Not too surprising for Star Trek, but Star Wars, it's pretty surprising. But thanks to All Access and now Disney+ both of these franchises will be spitting out future shows for years to come now. We know at least six with Star Trek shows in development now just like there are six Star Wars shows in development. Also both a mix of live action and animation. Crazy huh?
And I imagine just like how Captain Pike got a show because Trek fans were screaming for it after his appearance on Discovery, it's only a matter of time Ashoka Tano will probably get her own show too now that fans have a taste of a live action version on Mandalorian.And that's also what is fun about these shows because they are both getting a host both of old and new characters, but also in multiple time periods while its all still connected to the same canon.
For many fans now, the future of these franchises seem much less focused on films (at least for now) but the shows for many reasons, mostly being you're not taking such a big gamble like on a film. I still think its cool we now have a Star Trek show to watch on Thursday with Discovery and a Star Wars show on Friday with Mandalorian. Pretty cool time for fandom even if it's still not firing on all cylinders with the films at the moment!
I really don't care if we don't see another movie for awhile, although, I was curious to see what Hawley was going to create. Sounds like it was going to be something original which would be welcome.
Much as I'm sympathetic to Hawley's sentiment of new crew, less action, lower budget movies (hopefully not new timeline again though!), I can understand why post-reunification (heh!), the Paramount Trek movie division would see no point in continuing to compete with the CBS Trek television division on that same narrative and budgetary level of Trek, now that the latter is working rather well at least from the business side (better than the movie business, for sure!)
If you can spend 100 million on a 2 hour movie the sort of Noah has in mind, with uncertain success chances in a COVID-ravaged, blockbuster-only movie world, or spend 100 million on a 10 hour television series with assured streaming revenue, what would you choose?
Now surely blockbuster Trek is a dead end as well, as the Kelvin movies have ultimately proven, but the doors are wide open for all sorts of Trek on TV. Maybe even Hawley's?
Well it's not often you actually hear when something's dead, even six months after the fact.
The Chris-and-Chris-in-the-mornings movie is a no-go; without its two leads it's even less viable than the other two projects. Emma Watts isn't interested in making a ST movie AT ALL if she doesn't know that.
So then everything is just going to be Processed Trek courtesy of Kurtzman and the All Access people.
No, people, ST is NOT doing "just fine" on the TV front. It is NOT like "We already have ST on TV, where it frankly belongs, we don't need a movie anytime soon, we don't need a movie (ever) because I said so, meh… meh… meh… I said 'meh' already!"
What we have is Kurtzman Trek. Having everything be Kurtzman Trek is NOT a good recipe. Having everything be Berman Trek was not one either.
Kurtzman Trek is not conducive to the independent-minded writer-director. The Nick Meyer, the Rian Johnson, the [we hoped?] Noah Hawley, the Tarantino… Kurtzman Trek would not (and will not) work with him. Kurtzman Trek hates that guy, fears him.
Just like the fans hate and fear him… dread him even.
(Until he actually comes along and gives them what they champion as being the best ST movie even four decades later… then suddenly they're OK with him. As long as ST goes back to formula afterward).
Thank God. His movie would have bombed big time. Thank you.
Cygnus-X1
Who wants to bet that the "new direction" of the Trek movie franchise will be in line with the critical theory social justice "wokist" direction of the new Trek TV franchise and the Star Wars movie franchise — at least half of the characters will be female and in top power positions and/or in roles with super-human strength; there will be at least one main character with an LGBT issue; and the majority of main characters will be non-white?
We can make it a friendly bet.
Reply to Cygnus-X1
Ok, I'll bite. Having half the cast be women and majority as POC with some non-straight characters is more in line with Roddenberry's philosophy of having the Enterprise being a representation of Earth. That is why his crew was multi-racial from the start. His initial first officer was a woman!
Your statement of "new direction" is really just brining back Gene's initial direction.
Star Fleet is based on the U.S. Navy. Less than 20% of the U.S. Navy is female.
Almost three quarters of the U.S. population is white.
Less than five percent of the U.S. population identifies as LGBT, according to a recent Reuters poll.
So, no, it's not an accurate representation of Western society or even human society.
And a majority of the TOS cast was not non-white.
So, it's not a return to GR's way, either.
Nothing much new here. ViacomCBS has recognized that being a global entertainment company means that the people on the screen and behind the scenes need to reflect the audience they want to attract.
Perhaps you should read ViacomCBS' policy statements on representation and on including BIPOC writers, producers and other behinds the scenes leadership.
This has been their position and part of their branding for some time, and they are locking it into their calls for new productions overseas.
"ViacomCBS has recognized that being a global entertainment company means that the people on the screen and behind the scenes need to reflect the audience they want to attract."
That hasn't worked out so well so far though has it? Unless 'global' means the usual Western suspects ;)
And casting a Wuxia star well past her prime* as Space Hitler isn't an attraction but an insult to those audiences!
*Frankly I still can't understand how a formerly beloved film star in three leading movie industries could have fallen so low as to let herself be tied to such a toxic role in the McTrek version of scifi television franchises!
That argument would explain it all, if only the casting were statistically representative of the population. But, it isn't.
And, this is not meant to suggest that casting by racial and sexual statistics would a good way of approaching a dramatic product, even if said statistics were accurately representational. I'd say there's more than ample evidence that prioritizing the identity issues of the cast is not in the best interests of the story, drama or performances, which is what I value most in entertainment and dramatic works.
But, everyone is entitled to their own values.
Last edited 1 month ago by Cygnus-X1
Danpaine
Honestly, that's….pretty much everything out there now. IDIC, and all…
Reply to Danpaine
I would disagree that what we're talking about is "diversity."
There has been diversity in movies and TV for many decades.
What we're talking about is something significantly different. If you're interested in what, exactly, that is, I'd encourage you to look in to critical theory.
I would love that. Make it so.
I will not even take that bet but I can tell you that I will bet that will be one of the worst moves that Paramount could ever make. I think fans will be lost and the franchise will suffer. No, I am neither racist or pro or con against gay rights. I simply believe that most of the public want to be entertained and not be bombarded with social issues watching the movie. If I want that I will watch a documentary or the news. I sincerely hope you are wrong.
Seriously, why do you think it'll bomb on these qualities alone? What if we got a movie with spectacular acting, writing, direction and effects, and a cast half female, LGBTQ+ and woke asf? Why would the casting diminish the allure of a good story? That's what you sound like right now – oh, it doesn't even matter if it's good, cuz it'll fail cuz Hollywood is just trying to be "woke". Guess what: it has nothing to do with anything, period. And those of you with issues with it are being…well, let's just say you're showing your true colors
I frankly do not know to what TRUE colors you are referring. The only true color I believe in is that people are judged by their character and actions, NOT by race, creed, beliefs, etc. Everyone should be free to live their lives as they wish so long as they do not interfere with or harm anyone else. In the end we are solely responsible for the choices we make in life. My comment meant that its kind of like the old Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies where sex was implied but never shown. And to your "woke" reference, I believe that new rules for the academy awards state that certain guidelines as to racial quotas have to be followed in order to be considered for the award. I think everything in today's society is far too political. I don't think a "in your face" political Star Trek would be well received. As far as the actors and actresses, their lifestyles are of their own choosing. The scene in STB did not offend me but I would ask what did the scene contribute to the plot of the movie. To me it served no purpose to the movie.
I simply believe that most of the public want to be entertained and not be bombarded with social issues watching the movie.
I agree with this statement.
I totally agree with you. Movies are a form of escapism. Why would I want to see something with some social or political issue. Leave that to the news and let movies entertain.
I should clarify that I appreciate treatments of sociopolitical issues in Trek when they're done well, are fair-minded, preferably not heavy-handed and especially when they offer some sort of unifying, humanistic solution to a problem. TOS episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," "Errand of Mercy" and "Day of the Dove" had unifying themes. They didn't pit people against each other. And that's one of the principle differences between the peace movement of the 1960s and today's Critical Theory Social Justice movement. The former was about peace, love, amity and it promoted individual freedom.
The latter is about dividing and conquering, with the ultimate goal of amassing as much power and control over society, and especially over the individual, as possible. The 1960s peace movement sought benefits for all people. Today's SJ movement has a zero-sum strategy at its core.
You sound like you are of my generation and I do agree with you concerning your statements concerning episodes that have social issues so long as they are not done with an "in your face" or non unifying attitude. As I stated in a previous comment, the scene with Sulu greeting his partner did not offend me but my question was what purpose did the scene achieve with regards to the plot of the movie. I do agree with you also concerning the differences between the the 1960's movement and what is occurring today. I am proud to have been a part of that generation.
Half female cast, and powerful to boot? Hell, count this red blooded male in. The woker it gets, the more the crying internet trolls complain – and I thrive on the salty tears of emasculated men. Keep complaining, it only makes the case stronger that the people who hate this stuff are but a vocal minority. The rest of us love woke Trek and don't complain when our women are in charge, and our men treat them as equal.
Yeah, so what?
Well, if it arises organically, in the interests of the story, drama and performances, then it's fine.
But, when advancing an ideology is prioritized over the story, drama and performances, the latter tend to suffer. It's difficult to serve two masters.
There's also the issue of racial and sexual discrimination, if you care about that. You cannot discriminate in favor of a certain race/ethnicity without simultaneously discriminating against people of other races/ethnicities. And this issue is intertwined with what I said previously. An outstanding actor being passed by or overlooked for being of the wrong race/ethnicity is not in the best interests of the story, drama and performances.
Totally agree. Best for the part should not be about reaching a quota based on racial, social or sexual preferences. It should be based on best talent for the part. The same thing applies to the script. Keep political and social issues out of the script unless they contribute to the plot.
Dr Beckett
Just think, if the gaps between the Kelvin-verse films were the same as the original casts' films, we would have been getting ready for their Star Trek 5 or 6 by now.
All the talented people who have been interested in leading a new Trek movie, and what do we get? Rumors that Paramount wants more action Trek. What a waste.
GarySeven
The suits are stopping the Hawley movie, not enough action, to continue to make Star Trek into a tentpole franchise. I give up on future Star Trek. It's over.
Reply to GarySeven
The suits have been trying to make Star Trek more action-packed and less cerebral since 1965! NBC ordered another pilot after they thought The Cage was too cerebral and they didn't like a woman first officer. But Gene and others continued to fight the good fight and still bring use 50 plus years of quality Star Trek, even through all the spectacle and fisticuffs.
I'm feeling rather sad for the staff on the Paramount side of ViacomCBS who have been keeping the lights on for a future movie production.
It sounds as though preproduction work was already in train when Hawley's project was nixed.
There was one poster here who had (a very long time ago) implied that they worked for Paramount. They disappeared suddenly about the time we first heard Hawley's project was dead.
It's got to be demoralizing for employees who love the franchise and had hoped that the remerger would sort things out to get the film's going again, only to have the film VP put everything in other Paramount brands.
z Jones
We've got lower decks and discovery and picard I'm fine with no movie for awhile
BringBackKirkPrime
Ultimately, I have zero interest in a crew I've never heard of in the movies. I don't mind a movie not being all about action, but I'm really only interested in movies that have Kirk and the original crew in them.
Reply to BringBackKirkPrime
Well, that's a view, but I'm not feeling it's as widely held as it was 30 years ago.
In fact, despite the high proportion of TOS fans on this board, many of us have said we were intrigued by the opportunity to see new characters in the universe.
You cannot make a film for 185 million, spend tons of money on advertising it and have it bring in just 343 million. That is why 4 years later there hasn't been a sequel to Star Trek Beyond. When you have Mission Impossible films like Fallout cost 175 million and make almost 800 million worldwide. Paramount isn't stupid and they are not in business to lose money. Star Trek is not big money, Star Trek is niche, Star trek while it has a devoted following has a ceiling.
I think this would make for a good a Trek movie. I don't however agree with changing the entire cast. What would be the point? The Pine Trek has already established new characters that WORK. When I went to see the 1st one I didn't want to like it. I felt what they were doing was sacrilegious to the franchise. I ended up loving it! They seamlessly moved the new characters into Trek in a way that was completely unanticipated by me. I enjoyed the subsequent movies as well. I didn't feel it had lost much of the human side of Trek at all, just added to it. A little more would have been nice but if you've watched them all there are subtitles in each movie that refer to the human side. The scene where Kirk says "when did sulu find time to have a family", the incredible scenes between Pike & Kirk were all touching & set the stage for the rest of the movie (s), Uhura & Spock relationship, etc. The action scenes just brought the movies into this century to keep up with the growing SFX in every action movie. And it was wonderful! Not to mention the added humor that was a great touch!
The Shuttle Pod – The TrekMovie.com Podcast
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/trekmovie.com/podcast-player/69376/all-access-star-trek-picard-update-and-looking-back-at-discovery-season-3.mp3
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/trekmovie.com/podcast-player/69272/all-access-star-trek-that-hope-is-you-part-2-discovery-season-3-finale-review.mp3
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/trekmovie.com/podcast-player/69024/all-access-star-trek-there-is-a-tide-discovery-episode-312-review.mp3
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/trekmovie.com/podcast-player/68919/shuttle-pod-91-star-treks-legacy-of-social-commentary-tngs-the-drumhead.mp3
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/trekmovie.com/podcast-player/68858/all-access-star-trek-sukal-discovery-episode-311-review.mp3
Click here for all episodes
TrekMovie.com is not endorsed, sponsored or affiliated with CBS Studios Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp or the "Star Trek" franchise. STAR TREK® and its various marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. 2020 © CBS Studios Inc./Paramount Pictures Corp
© 2006-2020 SciFanatic Network | Legal/Privacy Info |


text:
Curtin Village
Curtin Village is a significant historical site in Central Pennsylvania. It was the location of an ironworks that operated from the early 1800s through 1921. A number of historic structures are still standing including the Curtin family mansion, a late-Victorian house, workers houses, the ironworks building, and the remnants of a grist mill. The village, which was a self-sustaining community, is typical of other ironworks sites in the center region of the state and as such gives visitors a sense of what life was like for the people that lived and worked here. Visitors will also learn about the important role the iron industry played in the state's development. The entire site comprises a historic district that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Curtin family mansion was built around 1830. The entire property was 30,000 acres, which included the iron mines.
The ironworks building was originally constructed around 1847. It burned down in 1921 but was rebuilt in the 1970s.
Roland Curtin was a student in Paris in the early 1790s but fled to America to escape the violence of the French Revolution. He made his way to Bellefonte around 1800. He established the ironworks in 1810 with a man named Miles Boggs, who eventually sold his share to Curtin 1815, making Curtin sole owner. Curtin soon became a prominent figure in the area, serving as coroner and then as sheriff. He married the daughter of U.S. Senator Andrew Gregg, Margery (or Jane, according to another source). Their son, Andrew Gregg Curtain, would serve as Governor from 1861-1867.
Curtain and Boggs chose this location because timber and iron deposits were plentiful, the river provided a power source, and there was a ready source of limestone, which was needed to process the iron. The village was mostly self-sustaining—complete with Blacksmiths, carpenters, teachers, and shopkepers—and did not need a lot of supplies from elsewhere.
"Curtin Village." National Parks Service - National Register of Historic Places. March 11, 1971. http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/CRGIS_Attachments/SiteResource/H001621_01H.pdf.
"Curtin Family & Mansion." Curtin Village at Eagle Ironworks Historical Site. Accessed November 4, 2018. http://www.curtinvillage.com/Curtin_Family___Mansion.html.
Photos: Wikimedia Commons
251 Curtin Village Road
Howard, PA 16841
Guided tours are given on Saturday, 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. and Sunday, 11 a.m. - 4 p.m. (last tour begins at 3 p.m.) from June through October.
Created by Ben M on November 4th 2018, 10:51:43 am.
Last updated by Ben M on November 4th 2018, 3:18:25 pm.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Array Index as Keys in Hash Tables I'm trying to work with hash tables in perl. I'm facing a problem when i'm using an array index as a key in the hash table.
my @array;
my %Mappings;
$Mappings{$array[0]} = 'First';
$Mappings{$array[1]} = 'Second';
print "$Mappings{$array[0]} \n $Mappings{$array[1]} \n";

The output of this code is always Second. I'm unable to access the value First with this code.
Should I be considering any other steps to access the value First ?

A: Given both $array[0] and $array[1] are undefined, they'll map to an empty string for hash access. So yeah it is expected that they'll refer to the same element.
Can you explain what you're trying to achieve?

A: If your elements have the same value, e.g., undef, 1, 2, 'a' ... then you will get the same hash. To avoid this you can use the address of the array element:
use warnings;
use strict;
my @array = ('1', '1');
my %Mappings;
$Mappings{\$array[0]} = 'First';
$Mappings{\$array[1]} = 'Second';
print "$Mappings{\$array[0]} \n $Mappings{\$array[1]} \n";

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
OSSTF: New early years plan strengthens Ontario education
Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation (OSSTF)
Marketwire
OSSTF/FEESO applauds the McGuinty government and the work of Dr. Charles Pascal for providing Ontario with a well-researched and revolutionary model for early learning in Ontario. We strongly support school boards offering a full day early-learning program staffed by qualified teachers and early childhood educators and pledge our commitment and cooperation to ensuring the implementation of this plan.
OSSTF/FEESO is uniquely positioned to support this model for early learning as we have, since 1990, represented a wide variety of educational workers. With our 20 years of experience of representing early childhood educators and our long standing commitment to early education, we clearly support this staffing model of a qualified early learning team.
We believe an early learning team, consisting of both qualified teachers and early childhood educators who are board employees, using established curriculum and a consistent approach to learning will provide even more opportunities for success. The model will also provide four- and five-year-olds with access to existing board resources and early intervention supports.
"Every parent and guardian wants their child to experience success and this blended model guarantees a rich and promising start for all students," says Ken Coran, President of OSSTF/FEESO. "This plan marks a new beginning. It will be challenging, but with full cooperation this early learning model will drive success."
OSSTF/FEESO believes that, when fully implemented, this new model will make Ontario a leader in both the country and the world in early education. We commend both Premier Dalton McGuinty and Dr. Charles Pascal for their visionary commitment to early learning.
OSSTF/FEESO, founded in 1919, has 60,000 members across Ontario. They include public high school teachers, occasional teachers, educational assistants, continuing education teachers and instructors, psychologists, secretaries, speech-language pathologists, social workers, plant support personnel, attendance counsellors, and many others in education.
- reprinted from Marketwire


text:
Yukako Love Deluxe / ユカコラブデラックス
Joined: March 2015 (BiSH founding member)
Lyrics Written: MONSTERS, TOUMIN SHOJO, Lonely girl
Left: March 27, 2015
LEAVING BiSH:
Yukako was one of the founding members of BiSH, however she never debuted due to anxiety. She was due to have her first solo interview on March 27, 2015. The interviewer, Iida, said that he recieved a text message informing him of her deciscion to quit just 30 minutes before the interview. Because of such short notice, the interview still went ahead, and she talks openly about why she's leaving. [x]
Since she left after recording their debut album, the other members had to re-record over her parts. However, her original vocals were left on the track [Spark]. She is also credited on the album as writing the lyrics to 'MONSTERS', 'TOUMIN SHOJO' and 'Lonely girl'.
From 2008 – 2015, she was the vocalist and guitarist in the band MIKINORME / 魅起法則, under the name ヤシロユカ / Yashiro Yuka. Despite forming in 2008, they didn't have their first release – a full debut album titled, 'Is Escape' until February 5, 2014.
Following her leaving BiSH, she reformed the group, as the sole member, under the name of mikinorumu / ミキノルム.
On June 22, 2016, the ex-band mates joined her for what seems to be a one-off live at Shibuya Lush. For the show, they went by the name SCARLET OVERKILL YOU. [x]
COMPLETE HISTORY:
• 魅起法則 / ミキノルム / MIKINORME – Vocalist & Guitarist – 2008 – 2015 (founding member)
• BiSH – Main Group – March 2015 – March 27, 2015 (founding member)
• ミキノルム. / MIKINORME – Reformation of the band, but as a solo act – 2015 – present day
• SCARLET OVERKILL YOU – MIKINORME one-off reform live – June 22, 2016