Jump to content

Next ‘Star Trek’ Film To Be Directed By Matt Shakman


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

And Stephen Spielberg is directing Robopocalypse.  

 

I will believe this when production starts

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

Stephen Spielberg

Who is this guy, Steven Spielberg's less famous young brother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I find it impossible to get even marginally excited about anything related to Star Trek any more.


Watch the whole first season of Lower Decks.

 

8 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I can't say I'm excited for a new movie in the Chris Pine universe, but it doesn't give me a sinking feeling of dread like any announcement about the Paramount+ shows does.  Like, Beyond is a decent silly sci-fi action movie if you just make yourself forget it's Star Trek.  Whereas the current TV shows have no redeeming qualities in any way.

 

Watch the whole first season of Lower Decks (I know it’ll take some adjusting at first).

 

Yavar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did watch the whole first season of Lower Decks. It's got its funny moments, is full of fan service, and the best of the new Trek series.

 

The problem is, if Picard and Discovery were any good (and they're not), Lower Decks would be a nice, diverting compliment to those shows. An accent or garnish, if you will. But this funny little 30 minute animated comedy isn't strong enough to carry the entire franchise on its own.

 

And really, if I want comedic Trek, I'll watch The Orville, which is great and Trek in everything but name (as Discovery and Picard are Trek in name only).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I did watch the whole first season of Lower Decks. It's got its funny moments, is full of fan service, and the best of the new Trek series.

 

The problem is, if Picard and Discovery were any good (and they're not), Lower Decks would be a nice, diverting compliment to those shows. An accent or garnish, if you will. But this funny little 30 minute animated comedy isn't strong enough to carry the entire franchise on its own.

 

And really, if I want comedic Trek, I'll watch The Orville, which is great and Trek in everything but name (as Discovery and Picard are Trek in name only).

Hard to disagree with that... I really enjoyed Lower Decks, but it's clearly too silly to be taken seriously, even if its probably much closer to the ideals of the show (although I think it's ridiculous that people on a deep space mission would be in bunk beds; starships are huge, even junior officers should get their own quarters). But it's a shame that the Orville isn't an "official" Star Trek show... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Who is this guy, Steven Spielberg's less famous young brother?

He is similar to famous horror writer Steven King who was supposedly writing a sequel to 'Salem's Lot.

 

 

No real Star Trek Fan wants another kelvin-verse film and we certainly do not need another mediocre MG ST score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

He is similar to famous horror writer Steven King who was supposedly writing a sequel to 'Salem's Lot.

 

 

No real Star Trek Fan wants another kelvin-verse film and we certainly do not need another mediocre MG ST score.

But they are so flashy and exciting ;-)

 

They should get that Goldsmith fella back to write the music... if not that Horner chap... What do you mean, no longer with us? Shit. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Pellaeon said:

Star Trek is about three things: ideals, exploration, and colorful uniforms. The Orville hits that sweet spot. It’s probably for the best that it can’t reference Trek lore every five seconds, or hinge its plot on fangasm moments. Trek at its best was also a bare-bones framework for science fiction stories, not big on lore, not super self-referential. I don’t know if the franchise knows how to do that anymore. Beyond is the closest it has come in recent memory.

What's funny is that TNG/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise didn't try to make fan references every 5 minutes... sure, there were references from time to time as would be normal for something that takes place in the same fictional universe, but very rarely as a fan service. When they were (such as when the DS9 crew appear in Trials and Tribbleations) it's a one off, for a particular reason. Ah well, roll on Orville season 3 and your super music...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pellaeon said:

Star Trek is about three things: ideals, exploration, and colorful uniforms. The Orville hits that sweet spot. It’s probably for the best that it can’t reference Trek lore every five seconds, or hinge its plot on fangasm moments. Trek at its best was also a bare-bones framework for science fiction stories, not big on lore, not super self-referential. I don’t know if the franchise knows how to do that anymore. Beyond is the closest it has come in recent memory.

Beyond is utter crap. Its terrible on so many levels  It isn't Star Trek.

 

into Dadkness was far superior, better acted but it was a cheat. Leave out Khan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all.  Most people under a certain age are probably not that familiar with Star Trek stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

Will I get crucified for saying Beyond is my only real ST exposure (besides a scant few episodes of TOS when I was younger)?

 

If you get crucified, then I'm right there with you.

 

As someone who has literally never seen any other Star Trek content, and don't care to, the Kelvin films are great. Fun, Well-Acted, and Directed. I enjoy the hell out of them. I don't care if they're not "Star Trek" because I don't even know what that is. For me, they are Star Trek. lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

Will I get crucified for saying Beyond is my only real ST exposure (besides a scant few episodes of TOS when I was younger)?

Then get familiar with real star trek. The kelvin verse is crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Star Trek fans are fans of either TOS (the show) or TNG (the show) or both. The movies are mostly nostalgia trips; you don’t get a lot of fans who are in it mainly for the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

This is the way. 👆

 

When we say Star Trek is better than everything, we're talking about Deep Space Nine.

 

 

No except the tribble episode. Because Kirk is the superior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer TOS and the 80s films myself.  But I'm happy to see some movement on this.  The Kelvin Treks will never win awards for being well-written science fiction, but they are enjoyable romps for what they are.

 

Thing is, I don't really need more Trek than what I have.  The 3 seasons of TOS, the Animated Series, and the films I-VI give me plenty of enjoyment when I need my Trek fix.

 

Next Gen had a great cast, but a poor batting average.

 

Everything after that put me to sleep with a droning tone and lack of the style of adventure that would make any kid want to pretend to be part of a Landing Party in their back yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sold on DS9. I watched its famous “Trials and Tribble-ations” episode. A technical masterpiece, but the plot was unsatisfactory. The DS9 regulars were unimpressive: Brooks, Auberjonois, and Dorn mumbled their lines sleepily, and Meaney looked unwell. Only Farrell and Siddig seemed to be trying. Finally, the aesthetics (costumes, sets, models) in the DS9 present were unremarkable, dark, and “generic sci-fi,” quite the opposite of the warm and vivid aesthetics of both TOS and TNG. But yeah, mainly shocked to see Brooks phone it in, knowing he was going to be in an ep. alongside Shatner at his peak. The original “Tribbles” TOS episode honestly had kind of a weak and cringey script, and it could have been a total disaster if not for the fact that the TOS cast totally sell it by being 100% committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but what the heck are you going on about. The cast is phenomenal the acting is superior. The show is more watchable today thanks to obsessive binge watchers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was always the camp that never vibed with the Berman era and that's fine.  I've also seen people that love Discovery and never really got into Trek before.   Trekkies should be content that there's always been more peaceable relations among their camps than between Star Wars factions ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the fandom menace is ridiculous.

 

Those who like TNG and TOS best will like Deep Space Nine less, for sure, but I still recommend they start at the beginning and give it a try. Like Next Generation, it really kicks off around Season 3 but anyone who likes Next Gen in its later years, with the introduction of the Maquis, should be fine.

 

If the only Star Trek you want is the positive, sheer scientific optimism of exploration than you'll find much to dislike in Deep Space Nine. If you want Star Trek to reflect the time in which it was written (not necessarily the time in which it is set) then the grey morality of Deep Space Nine will appeal to you. It deals with identity, racism, PTSD, etc. I know Trek fans who think this strays too far from Roddenberry's vision. To me it was an inevitable and welcome evolution of the concept.

 

The Trials and Tribble-ations episode is more of a technical achievement than a testament to the acting abilities of the cast, although I don't think they are phoning it in. (I don't think Avery Brooks has ever phoned anything in his entire life.) If that is the only episode you have seen, I definitely recommend watching something a bit more tethered to Deep Space Nine's own mythology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

They should get that Goldsmith fella back to write the music... if not that Horner chap... What do you mean, no longer with us? Shit. :-(

 

Cliff Eidelman is still available…

 

8 hours ago, blondheim said:

Deep Space Nine is incredibly under-rated. I highly recommend it. It's got the best of both worlds. Ongoing serial storylines that tie up massively, the best special effects of any of the Star Trek TV shows of that era, and also solo mission episodes and stand-alones that feel like classic Trek. Those who haven't seen it should try. Benjamin Sisko is an amazing captain. Sort of the perfect in-between of Picard and Janeway. Not throwing the book off the ship but occasionally throwing the book across the room, if the rules don't allow for what Sisko thinks is best. The first episode deals with Picard in a very ambiguous way. There is also a very interesting study of religion and science and how they meet. There is an occupied planet that suffered a genocide. It's a big show with big ideas. It added so much to the Star Trek canon. It was the first time the Federation wasn't looked at as a totally good entity. This is also where we got Section 31.

 

Watch Deep Space Nine, y'all.

 

DS9 is peak series Trek. If they ever make a HD remaster and put it on physical discs, I'll probably buy it right away at full price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets face it Gene's vision was just fucking stupid. Its a nice unobtainable pipe dream. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my "when I was young and watched TV after school a lot" phase of life, it was Voyager that was on...and so that became my main Star Trek experience when I was a young lad. I used to walk around the apartment pretending I could talk to a computer in my best Janeway impression..."computer...coffee...black"

 

Then later on I started to catch random episodes of TNG. 

 

As for movies, I watched Insurrection and Nemesis in theaters, and then went back and watched all the films. 

 

I'm not really into it enough to say I'm a Trekkie, but man I really love the ship designs in the TMP - STV era of films. Enterprise Refit/ A is my favorite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, MrJosh said:

I used to walk around the apartment pretending I could talk to a computer in my best Janeway impression..."computer...coffee...black"

 

I do a pretty passable Janeway myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Star Trek's so-called "utopian" future is that it's entirely dependent on a single piece of technology...the replicator.  Take away the replicator, and humanity is still fighting over their limited resources. Take away the replicator and there's no currency free economy, or the ability of people to not work and sit around all day thinking of ways to "better themselves".  To the extent humanity "evolves" the way Roddenberry suppose it will, it's because of the replicator.  In fact the bright future in Star Trek, that so many people aspire to, is entirely based on three pieces of tech...the replicator, transporter & warp drive. So when humanity invents those things, then we can think about evolving to the Trekian vision of an ideal future.

 

So next time you see some idealistic Trekkie trying to use Star Trek to validate their own political beliefs, tell them to worry less about politics and work on inventing a replicator!

 

 

uxcd9h5zbu971.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The thing about Star Trek's so-called "utopian" future is that it's entirely dependent on a single piece of technology...the replicator.  Take away the replicator, and humanity is still fighting over their limited resources. Take away the replicator and there's no currency free economy, or the ability of people to not work and sit around all day thinking of ways to "better themselves".  To the extent humanity "evolves" the way Roddenberry suppose it will, it's because of the replicator.  In fact the bright future in Star Trek, that so many people aspire to, is entirely based on three pieces of tech...the replicator, transporter & warp drive. So when humanity invents those things, then we can think about evolving to the Trekian vision of an ideal future.

 

So next time you see some idealistic Trekkie trying to use Star Trek to validate their own political beliefs, tell them to worry less about politics and work on inventing a replicator!

 

 

uxcd9h5zbu971.png

 

 

I almost posted this clip! This is the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, blondheim said:

 

I do a pretty passable Janeway myself.

 

Hey so does Ensign Hickman in Astrophysics. And holographic Barclay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The thing about Star Trek's so-called "utopian" future is that it's entirely dependent on a single piece of technology...the replicator.  Take away the replicator, and humanity is still fighting over their limited resources. Take away the replicator and there's no currency free economy, or the ability of people to not work and sit around all day thinking of ways to "better themselves".  To the extent humanity "evolves" the way Roddenberry suppose it will, it's because of the replicator.  In fact the bright future in Star Trek, that so many people aspire to, is entirely based on three pieces of tech...the replicator, transporter & warp drive. So when humanity invents those things, then we can think about evolving to the Trekian vision of an ideal future.

 

So next time you see some idealistic Trekkie trying to use Star Trek to validate their own political beliefs, tell them to worry less about politics and work on inventing a replicator!

 

 

uxcd9h5zbu971.png

 

Basically true, but couldn't you say that about a number of technologies such as intensive farming, medicine, computers etc? Replicators are just the next step in reducing want and need. Perhaps the biggest thing is being able to harness unimaginable amounts of power effectively and safely. Always seems to be the background technologies that are the key drivers (like the impact of standardised shipping containers on global trade).

 

Side note... I watched The Good Shepherd (Voyager) which starts with a sequence where a requisition order for additional power (or something) which is passed from Seven of Nine to Engineering to some section in the bowels of the ship. I mean, don't these people even have MS Teams? ;-) It's amazing to think how clunky that kind of thing seems now - indeed the level of automation on Star Trek ships for even the newer shows and movies is surprisingly poor, but I figure it's kinda necessary for dramatic reasons. All those "divert power to the shields" or "fire the antimatter array on my command" is really ridiculous; the computer would automate all of that with a simple verbal command (basically Siri/Alexa with an additional 300 years of advancement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Basically true, but couldn't you say that about a number of technologies such as intensive farming, medicine, computers etc? Replicators are just the next step in reducing want and need. Perhaps the biggest thing is being able to harness unimaginable amounts of power effectively and safely. Always seems to be the background technologies that are the key drivers (like the impact of standardised shipping containers on global trade).

 

Absolutely. For example, advances in farming & food distribution has alleviated food scarcity & starvation in much of the world. This allows political systems to evolve to where people aren't competing over basic resources.  As a side note, it also helps keep the status quo and prevent revolutions. People are less likely to overthrow the government if they have their basic needs met. 

 

So I'm not saying the Trek utopia is only because of the replicator, but the replicator is essential to creating an environment where that future is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The thing about Star Trek's so-called "utopian" future is that it's entirely dependent on a single piece of technology...the replicator.  Take away the replicator, and humanity is still fighting over their limited resources. Take away the replicator and there's no currency free economy, or the ability of people to not work and sit around all day thinking of ways to "better themselves".  To the extent humanity "evolves" the way Roddenberry suppose it will, it's because of the replicator.  In fact the bright future in Star Trek, that so many people aspire to, is entirely based on three pieces of tech...the replicator, transporter & warp drive. So when humanity invents those things, then we can think about evolving to the Trekian vision of an ideal future.

 

So next time you see some idealistic Trekkie trying to use Star Trek to validate their own political beliefs, tell them to worry less about politics and work on inventing a replicator!

 

 

uxcd9h5zbu971.png

 

This does not only aply to Star Trek, but to the real world (apart from that replicator thing at least).

59 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Absolutely. For example, advances in farming & food distribution has alleviated food scarcity & starvation in much of the world. This allows political systems to evolve to where people aren't competing over basic resources.  As a side note, it also helps keep the status quo and prevent revolutions. People are less likely to overthrow the government if they have their basic needs met. 

But also people should not feel too well and not needing to worry about basic needs over a long period of time. Because if they do they become paranoid. So, they always need something to worry about and be kept busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The thing about Star Trek's so-called "utopian" future is that it's entirely dependent on a single piece of technology...the replicator. […] So next time you see some idealistic Trekkie trying to use Star Trek to validate their own political beliefs, tell them to worry less about politics and work on inventing a replicator!

 

Or you could see the replicator as a plot device that merely ensures fair distribution of sufficient resources (note that nobody in any story I know goes around and just replicates their own vanity stuff all over the Enterprise… and those characters who do end up "misusing" common resources purely for their own personal comfort are usually the bad guys). Not easily obtainable, of course, but replication technology is not necessarily the only solution for this. But this is veering straight into political territory (which is of course the intention of Trek).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

But also people should not feel too well and not needing to worry about basic needs over a long period of time. Because if they do they become paranoid. So, they always need something to worry about and be kept busy.

 

Yes. Once basic needs are met then people start worrying & freaking out over stupid first world sh*t like who said something they don't like on Twitter.

15 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

But this is veering straight into political territory (which is of course the intention of Trek).

 

No, not of course. The intention of Trek is first to entertain. In entertaining, it would often contain a message (which I'd describe as sociological, or even moral, more than political), but this wasn't the primary intention of the show, at least the original & 90's era incarnations. Classic Trek of course had a message, everyone knows that, but it never got in the way of good story telling, or overly preachy (something the current crew running Trek could learn from).

 

The idea of Trek being mostly a political show has been way, way exaggerated over the years, and has turned into a kind of conventional wisdom I'm not sure is warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

No, not of course. The intention of Trek is first to entertain. In entertaining, it would often contain a message (which I'd describe as sociological, or even moral, more than political), but this wasn't the primary intention of the show, at least the original & 90's era incarnations.


Let me put it differently then: It has always been about equality and tolerance. See the famous Kirk/Uhura kiss and what it apparently meant (judging by comments by various current actors) for generations of black actors. It doesn't necessarily treat it as a political issue (especially since in the world and time the stories are set in, it is presented as a non-issue), but of course that's what it usually is treated as today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:


Let me put it differently then: It has always been about equality and tolerance. See the famous Kirk/Uhura kiss and what it apparently meant (judging by comments by various current actors) for generations of black actors. It doesn't necessarily treat it as a political issue (especially since in the world and time the stories are set in, it is presented as a non-issue), but of course that's what it usually is treated as today.

 

Yes, this I agree with, absolutely. Trek has always had some broad moral and sociological messages at its core, i.e. tolerance, equality, diversity, war is bad, bigotry has no place in the future, etc. 
 

I do think the framework and background to the whole thing might have what some may regard as political elements (e.g. a currency free economy), but I think this reflects a more generalized idealism on Rodenberry's part than an embrace of a specific agenda.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, my Impression is that storytelling in many popular media seems to have developed an educational touch, pointing with a giant forefinger to some moral message along a quite generic plot, but maybe that's just because of my bad movie choices or my poor way of reception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I really don't want another Kelvin verse film I will still see it. What I'm really bitching about is here is another announcement of a Star Trek film. We've had Tarantino this guy some female director somebody named Nick and nothing has come to fruition. So just put me in the I will believe it when I see it category

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.