New Star Trek Cinematic Movie Coming to According Deadline

[delericho]

Sources tell Deadline that while plot details are being kept under wraps, the project is an origin story...

How? Surely the 2009 "Star Trek" film is the origin story?

 

[Ryujin]

How? Surely the 2009 "Star Trek" film is the origin story?

Maybe a story about the origin of the Federation?

(Yeah, that's been done before too.)

 

[Henadic Theologian]

How? Surely the 2009 "Star Trek" film is the origin story?

Its a mystery as to whose origin it is, if its decades before the 2009 movie.

Some over suggested Archer.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Sci Trek is suggesting this leak came from Bad Robot, not Paramountvat all. Bad Robot might be trying to weasel there way back into running Star Trek Cinematic Universe, but are running into resistance among some exectives at Paramount who think running multiple timelines are too confusing for casuals. It doesn't help that Bad Robot got $250 million to make movies for WB and produced NOTHING, not good for the rep.

So Bad Robot leaks this to Deadline hoping to exert public pressure on Paramount to make the deal. So far it seens to be back firing, as yet another prequel is not particularly popular as far as I can tell, especially one so vague and confusing.

 

[Ryujin]

Regarding Star Trek (Kelvin) 4, I have no interest at all. I only ended up seeing the third movie accidentally, because I had misread the release date for another movie and as I was there, wanted to see something. After "Fast and Furious: Romulan Drift" I don't care to see another in that series.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Regarding Star Trek (Kelvin) 4, I have no interest at all. I only ended up seeing the third movie accidentally, because I had misread the release date for another movie and as I was there, wanted to see something. After "Fast and Furious: Romulan Drift" I don't care to see another in that series.

I think that things are always a matter of taste, but I really liked Kelvin 3. Much more than Kelvin 2.

I would start by saying that the best thing about the Kelvin movies is the cast. IMO, they really nailed the characters. The casting was perfect, and I thought all of the actors really embodied their characters. Okay, maybe Simon Pegg wasn't the absolute perfect Scotty, but I will forgive Simon everything, and if that's the only quibble about casting I have (and it's a minor quibble), it shows just how strong the casting was. RIP Anton Yelchin.

That said, Kelvin 2 suffered from the biggest problem that Abrams has when handling franchises; it borrows too heavily from the past. This was acceptable in Kelvin 1, but by Kelvin 2, it (IMO, again) torpedoed the movie. I can imagine the pitch, "It will be just like Khan, but WORSE! And lens flares, of course."

Kelvin 3 was, in many ways, silly. But it was also very much Star Trek. Yes, it was Star Trek as a movie (action sequences, etc.) but it felt like an overblown, overstuffed, kind of silly episode of Star Trek. I enjoyed it for what it was - and much more than Kelvin 2.

 

[Ryujin]

I think that things are always a matter of taste, but I really liked Kelvin 3. Much more than Kelvin 2.

I would start by saying that the best thing about the Kelvin movies is the cast. IMO, they really nailed the characters. The casting was perfect, and I thought all of the actors really embodied their characters. Okay, maybe Simon Pegg wasn't the absolute perfect Scotty, but I will forgive Simon everything, and if that's the only quibble about casting I have (and it's a minor quibble), it shows just how strong the casting was. RIP Anton Yelchin.

That said, Kelvin 2 suffered from the biggest problem that Abrams has when handling franchises; it borrows too heavily from the past. This was acceptable in Kelvin 1, but by Kelvin 2, it (IMO, again) torpedoed the movie. I can imagine the pitch, "It will be just like Khan, but WORSE! And lens flares, of course."

Kelvin 3 was, in many ways, silly. But it was also very much Star Trek. Yes, it was Star Trek as a movie (action sequences, etc.) but it felt like an overblown, overstuffed, kind of silly episode of Star Trek. I enjoyed it for what it was - and much more than Kelvin 2.

The casting is incredible which is why, to me, it's such a waste. I felt that things got progressively worse, as the movies went on. Yes, it's a matter of taste, and these are definitely not to my taste. I felt the third movie was one level beyond Fonzie jumping the shark on his motorcycle, and one level short of a Sharknado movie.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The casting is incredible which is why, to me, it's such a waste. I felt that things got progressively worse, as the movies went on. Yes, it's a matter of taste, and these are definitely not to my taste. I felt the third movie was one level beyond Fonzie jumping the shark on his motorcycle, and one level short of a Sharknado movie.

Fair, and as I said, it's always a matter of taste. That said, I enjoyed it, and appreciated the levity of those same antics (which were in contrast to the prior movie) to the same extent you didn't.

The box office indicates that more people align with your opinion. Weirdly, I just looked up the Rotten Tomatoes scores ... and Beyond (aka Kelvin 3) is actually the third highest ranked Star Trek movie ... behind Kelvin 1 and First Contact, and ahead of .... wait for it .... Wrath of Khan.

I would say that it is complete BS, but then again, they do have Star Trek V at the bottom.

 

[Vael]

I actually think I like Beyond the best out of the Kelvin movies. As it's the one that really gives us the Kelvin cast as the crew of the USS Enterprise. The Yorktown station, aside from the name (just doesn't feel like the name of a station, should be a starship), is actually quite beautiful. Jaylah was a nice addition to the cast. Balthazar Edison is a fun name to say. I also like Star Trek 2009, really it's only Into Darkness that I view as a failure.

That said, Kelvin 2 suffered from the biggest problem that Abrams has when handling franchises; it borrows too heavily from the past. This was acceptable in Kelvin 1, but by Kelvin 2, it (IMO, again) torpedoed the movie. I can imagine the pitch, "It will be just like Khan, but WORSE! And lens flares, of course."

JJ Abrams leans too heavily on nostaglia? I'm shocked, shocked, I say!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Its a mystery as to whose origin it is, if its decades before the 2009 movie.

Some over suggested Archer.

I would be more interested in the adventures of Porthos after some dumb engineer beamed him across the universe. It could be called Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home.