What's new

Paramount To Reboot 'Star Trek' Movie Franchise (1 Viewer)

Alex...

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
5,028
Location
Out there, past them trees.
Real Name
Alex Czaplicki

Simon Kinberg in Talks to Produce, Reboot ‘Star Trek’ Movie Franchise for Paramount​


Star-Trek-3-USS-Enterprise.jpg


Longtime X-Men producer Simon Kinberg is beaming up to a new franchise.

The multi-hyphenate is in talks to produce a new Star Trek feature for Paramount Pictures, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed. If all goes well, the door would open to him taking active creative roles on the rest of the storied franchise’s film side. Alex Kurtzman and Akiva Goldsman are the main creative producers on Star Trek‘s television side.

The project Kinberg would step into is already in very active development. Toby Haynes, who directed episodes of of the Star Wars series Andor, is on board to direct the new feature, with Seth Grahame-Smith writing the script. The project is said to be set decades before the events of the 2009 movie that was directed J.J. Abrams, likely around modern times. It is said to involve the creation of the Starfleet and humankind’s first contact with alien life.

 

SD_Brian

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
1,606
Real Name
Brian
Interesting. If set around modern times, would this be the first ST movie that doesn't involve pre-established characters, or will it be another time travel story that splinters things off into yet another timeline?
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,703
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
With respect, I think Kinberg’s work is generally terrible and I’d prefer almost anyone but him.

He’s one of these guys too who insists on using different credits for different kinds of films, which I interpret as having disdain for certain types of projects. If it’s a prestige project, he takes the billing “A Simon Kinberg Production”. If it’s sci-fi or fantasy or comic book inspired, he instead uses “A Kinberg Genre Production” as if somehow dramatic Oscar bait isn’t a genre but sci-fi is. This compulsion to differentiate works using verbiage that has generally served to denigrate sci-fi as “less than” should be disqualifying.

And if that isn’t, the scripts to his X-Men films should be.
 
Last edited:

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,947
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams

It is said to involve the creation of the Starfleet and humankind’s first contact with alien life.

I'm tired of Star Trek going into the Kirk, pre-Kirk eras. It locks them into an already confusing, inconsistent continuity. We already know how humankind in the Trek universe made first contact with alien life. We already know about the creation of Starfleet thanks to Star Trek Enterprise. The JJverse time split was not early enough to alter these events. This is just not a very interesting idea. Go forward in time and you can have new characters and be free of continuity, you don't even have to go as far into the future as Discovery. Just move away from current continuity and do you own thing, why keep revisiting already established periods.


They had a good thing going with the JJverse movies. I enjoy all 3 of them, not saying they are the best ST but, I do enjoy watching them. The general public bought in with the 2009 movie, more so than any recent ST production. They just took way too long between the sequels, long enough for the series to move out of the minds of the that public.

I'm a Trekkie so, they've already sold me my ticket no matter what but, I do not like this idea.
 

BobO'Link

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
11,626
Location
Mid-South
Real Name
Howie
I'll wait for reviews and then likely wait for a physical copy to drop into the $5 range and then give it a second thought before making a purchase.

Basically - It doesn't sound promising.
 

Bryan Tuck

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
1,998
Real Name
Bryan Tuck
To be honest, if they want to go for a full reboot this time (no alternate timelines, no sideways retcons, just all-out Batman Begins / Casino Royale), then that might not be the worst idea in the world.

We've gotten to the point where established Trek history is starting to intersect with real life, and maybe it doesn't make enough sense anymore. I don't think I'd be opposed to a fresh take on the idea that is completely unencumbered by nearly 60 years of convoluted continuity.

That was the intention with the 2009 film, and I would have been fine with them just proceeding from there. But with the streaming shows ostensibly set in the "Prime" timeline (I think partially because of the fact that CBS and Viacom were still technically separate entities when Discovery started), it's all become quite muddled.

But I doubt Paramount is ready to give their TV franchise up quite yet, so I really don't know what to expect.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,703
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Probably none of this means anything until the future of Paramount is settled. There are multiple offers on the table, none of which the current owners like, with some proposing to keep the company whole and others wanting to break it up and sell it for parts. There’s a plausible scenario where Paramount remains whole and franchises are continued. There’s a plausible scenario where the IP that Paramount owns is sold and the rights for things like Star Trek and Mission Impossible go elsewhere or even wind up split between TV rights and movie rights. And there’s a plausible scenario where a buyer wants the physical production assets and the television/streaming distribution infrastructure but doesn’t care about the IP at all.

Anything that Paramount is announcing that’s not actually in production seems more aspirational than inevitable, probably doubly so with a property they’ve long had difficulty getting off the ground.
 

Bryan Tuck

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
1,998
Real Name
Bryan Tuck
Anything that Paramount is announcing that’s not actually in production seems more aspirational than inevitable, probably doubly so with a property they’ve long had difficulty getting off the ground.

True. This may just be so they can show they technically have something in active development, which may be a good look for potential buyers.
 

Desslar

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
1,200
Real Name
Stephen
Eh, I think my interest in new Star Trek is winding down. I found the recent trilogy relatively entertaining due to sharing a lot of DNA with TOS. But I'm not really excited about an all new continuity.

Still, if they can recruit new generations of fans then good for them.
 

dpippel

Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Supporter
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
12,446
Location
Sonora Norte
Real Name
Doug
Ugh. Paramount has NEVER really known what to do with Star Trek IMO, and this announcement is a perfect example of that. The Kelvin Timeline films were entertaining enough, but as Chris Will said, they allowed too much time to pass between sequels and I think public interest waned. The TV shows are all over the place, but I will say that I think Strange New Worlds is the best Trek to come along in decades. I've thoroughly enjoyed that show.

This? Well, I've gotta bad feeling about this...
 

Chip_HT

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,122
Real Name
Chip
And if that isn’t, the scripts to his X-Men films should be.

He tried to adapt one of the greatest X-Men stories to screen twice and messed it up both times. He actually managed to do worse the second time.

There's literally nothing in this announcement that excites me as a fan. In fact, it's having the complete opposite effect.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
27,235
Location
Albany, NY
With respect, I think Kinberg’s work is generally terrible and I’d prefer almost anyone but him.
Agreed. The one X-Men film that he had total control over, Dark Phoenix, is also the one that killed the franchise at Fox. X-Men: Apocalypse was very much not great, either. Of the original X-Men trilogy, the one he co-wrote is by far the worst. I've always gotten the impression that he's made it as far as he has only because he's someone who's good in a room with executives and knows how to speak their language.

But why you would hand over your longest-running franchise (after Mission: Impossible) to a guy who has already done immense harm at the helm of another lucrative franchise just boggles the mind.

When Alex Kurtzman was handed the keys, he had been an important contributor to a number of Paramount's recent successes. Kinberg doesn't bring anywhere near that kind of track record to the table.

I'm tired of Star Trek going into the Kirk, pre-Kirk eras.
I really love "Strange New Worlds", but I definitely agree that that should be the exception rather than the rule. Star Trek is all about looking to the future, so it's strange that so much of the franchise's recent attention has been focused on the past.

"Discovery" really hemmed itself in by starting out as a prequel, and then overcorrected by jumping way too far into the future. As divisive as the first season of "Picard" was, the show undermined its own momentum by setting so much of the second season in essentially the present day.

We've gotten to the point where established Trek history is starting to intersect with real life, and maybe it doesn't make enough sense anymore.
I wish they'd just committed to the fact that the Prime timeline is an alternate history to our own, that was very similar until the mid-eighties but then veered off in a very different direction after that.

I don't think I'd be opposed to a fresh take on the idea that is completely unencumbered by nearly 60 years of convoluted continuity.
There's obvious appeal in removing all of the barriers to entry for new audiences. But doing so is likely to alienate many of the hardcore fans who have invested decades of passion intor arguably the longest running cohesive film/TV universe.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,703
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
He tried to adapt one of the greatest X-Men stories to screen twice and messed it up both times. He actually managed to do worse the second time.

It's insane that he was allowed to do it twice. And his second pass was so bad that it killed off a once-promising revitalization of the X-Men property that started sinking the moment the studio let Matthew Vaughn walk. It's amazing how Kinberg took everything that "X-Men: First Class" did, everything that made watching an X-Men movie seem fun again, and ran it into the ground. With the cast the 2011 film had and the nearly limitless potential for creating a sustainable, long-running series, his creative choices alienated both audiences and the A-list talent working under him. They used to exile filmmakers into "writers jail/directors jail" who screwed up that badly.

There's literally nothing in this announcement that excites me as a fan. In fact, it's having the complete opposite effect.

That's where I'm at, and I'm really sad to feel that way. If you look at his franchise work as a writer in the past decade, it's littered with examples of films that were rejected by critics and built-in audiences, and he must be able to deliver one hell of a sales pitch to executives because there's nothing in the filmography that suggests you want to turn the car keys over to him.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,703
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I've always gotten the impression that he's made it as far as he has only because he's someone who's good in a room with executives and knows how to speak their language.

he must be able to deliver one hell of a sales pitch to executives because there's nothing in the filmography that suggests you want to turn the car keys over to him.

🤣🤣🤣

Look, if we’re both typing the same thing at the same moment…

The best I can say about this is that with Paramount’s track record, this isn’t likely to get made either.
 

Tommy R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
2,180
Real Name
Tommy
The best I can say about this is that with Paramount’s track record, this isn’t likely to get made either.
Came here to say it’ll probably be 9-12 months and Paramount will saw that this project has been shelved. 🤪

Seriously, they should just throw in the towel when it comes to Trek on the big screen.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,703
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Seriously, they should just throw in the towel when it comes to Trek on the big screen.

I can't believe I'm agreeing but I think I am.

The original series of movies made sense because there was really no going back to television with the original cast, and it was still worthwhile seeing them have a few additional adventures on the big screen. Same with the Next Generation films. I really enjoyed the Kelvin films, and that they had Nimoy's participation at the start, with many of the original cast members endorsing their replacements, made it feel connected to the originals in a way that I enjoyed and would have been happy to support in perpetuity. I'm still in if they ever make another Kelvin film.

But otherwise... Trek is at its best when we can see the same characters confronting new situations, and that's something that generally works better as a weekly television series than a haphazardly scheduled set of films.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,877
Messages
5,145,138
Members
144,503
Latest member
nalandaretreat
Recent bookmarks
0
Top