New Kelvin Timeline Star Trek film goes into production late 2022

[Retreater]

Not at all. This was so perfect TOS.

The sad thing about many Star Trek fans is how they can't embrace that the show can be both sublime and ridiculous. And, quite frankly, the ridiculous parts are what make it sublime.

Are we talking about Sublime or the Beastie Boys?
I liked Star Trek IV's silliness of time travel, fish (whale?) out of water. But I think it fit the story and was believable for the characters. Like if they were to travel to the alternate 1990s to stop Khan and the Eugenics Wars and heard the Beastie Boys, that could work.
Otherwise it just felt like hearing 90s music in the grocery because they want you to feel comfortable and young while you're purchasing fiber supplements and rice cakes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Are we talking about Sublime or the Beastie Boys?
I liked Star Trek IV's silliness of time travel, fish (whale?) out of water. But I think it fit the story and was believable for the characters. Like if they were to travel to the alternate 1990s to stop Khan and the Eugenics Wars and heard the Beastie Boys, that could work.
Otherwise it just felt like hearing 90s music in the grocery because they want you to feel comfortable and young while you're purchasing fiber supplements and rice cakes.

I have to disagree- you might think it was catering to you, but it wasn't.

I was watching it with a young teen family member in the theater, who didn't know the song or the group, and he loved it. I think "olds" forget that the songs that are memberberries to them ... are brand spankin' new to other people. After all, are they playing Led Zeppelin during Thor because they are trying to appeal to the geriatric crow, or because it's a great song that goes with the movie, and was new to a good deal of the target audience?

I hate to tell you this- but you're not the primary movie audience for big budget blockbusters. They weren't catering to you.

 

[MGibster]

For me, Star Trek's utopian optimism is out of step with the world. Imagining an earth where we all get along in a peaceful space organization where everyone has everything they need, believe in technology/science, corruption is at a minimum, etc, just seems fake.

The original run of Star Trek was from 1966 to 1969. During this time, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation permeated daily life, the United States was involved in a hot war in southeast Asia, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, the Manson Family murdered Sharon Tate and several guests at her home in California, and the Brady Bunch aired its first episode on ABC. Despite the tumultuous times of the 1960s, Star Trek managed to bring a little optimism for the future into living room. If it's out of step today why wasn't it out of step in the 60s?

Although I push back against the idea that the original Star Trek presented us with a utopia. Things were certainly better in that humanity seemed to move beyond many of the problems we had in the 1960s, but life wasn't perfect and many of the characters we run into, including some of the main characters, exhibited flaws including bigotry though they typically managed to overcome them.

 

[MGibster]

If it's otherwise the same cast, I hope they don't try to replace Yelchin in the role. Give Chekhov an off screen promotion to another ship, and bring in a CGI Lt. Arex.

When asked in the past, either the director or the producers made it clear in no uncertain terms that they did not intend to recast the role of Chekhov.

I was watching it with a young teen family member in the theater, who didn't know the song or the group, and he loved it. I think "olds" forget that the songs that are memberberries to them ... are brand spankin' new to other people.

We've got to stop using the word memberberries. It sounds like some sort of medical condition that's making me itchy in uncomfortable places.

 

[Aeson]

Have you tried ivermectin?

 

[payn]

 

[Zaukrie]

Big fan! The first movie was great fun. I wasn't in love with everything after that, but I'm not in love with every MCU decision or Star Wars decision either....

 

[darjr]

I’ll watch it. But what does temperature have to do with it?

 

[ART!]

Into Darkness was bad, but I enjoyed both the first one and Star Trek Beyond. I'll happily watch more of them.

STID asked the question no one with any sense had asked and whose answer everyone knew was "because that's stupid": "Hey, why don't we remake Wrath of Khan?"

It's just ill-conceived from the get-go, and I want to know who green-lit the idea.

Like a lot of J.J. Abram's stuff, I think the first one is rip-roaring popcorn fun that upon any examination is pretty dumb.

Beyond is one of those movies that i feel I need to give another chance. It did feel like an episode to me, but not in a good way. That and I reject one of the core premises of the movie, that Kirk is bored. I can't imagine Shatner's Kirk ever being bored - it's just not in his character.

Given the track record of the Kelvin-timeline movies, I can only assume they will rejigger another fan-favorite, The Voyage Home, and do a time-travel movie (as was rumored at one point).

 

[Jer]

STID asked the question no one with any sense had asked and whose answer everyone knew was "because that's stupid": "Hey, why don't we remake Wrath of Khan?"

It's just ill-conceived from the get-go, and I want to know who green-lit the idea.

Not just remake Wrath of Khan but let's also cast an English actor as Khan while we do it. I mean if you're going to go back to the genetic supersoldier well at least make it a different guy whose background actually fits the actor you've cast for it.

And casting wasn't even the worst part of that movie - the whole thing was ill-conceived from top to bottom.

Like a lot of J.J. Abram's stuff, I think the first one is rip-roaring popcorn fun that upon any examination is pretty dumb.

Beyond is one of those movies that i feel I need to give another chance. It did feel like an episode to me, but not in a good way. That and I reject one of the core premises of the movie, that Kirk is bored. I can't imagine Shatner's Kirk ever being bored - it's just not in his character.

I'm willing to buy that THAT Kirk has a short attention span and gets bored quickly. I can swallow that the loss of his father at a young age would have left Kirk with different influences who make him a different person.