What's new

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

Bryan Tuck

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Messages
1,998
Real Name
Bryan Tuck
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.

I'm not sure about other situations, but I think on X-Men: Apocalypse, Kinberg stepped in as director when Bryan Singer would disappear for days at a time. Sometimes just showing up for work when others don't will earn you some favor with the bosses.

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 into arguably the longest running cohesive film/TV universe.

I know; I'm one of them. :) But I just feel like it's not all that cohesive anymore. It was never airtight; there are inconsistencies throughout the original series and movies. But it's not even really about specific continuity for me.

It's more that the franchise keeps eating its own tail instead of truly evolving. The current custodians constantly undermine their own efforts to enlarge the Trek universe by insisting on tying so many things directly into characters and events that have already been established, which instead makes it feel smaller.

To me, Discovery was ill-advised from the get-go. I agree wholeheartedly that it should never have been a prequel at all, let alone one set so close in time to the original series, and tied so directly into it by having the lead character be a member of Spock's family. And as you indicated, it then jumped so far into the future that it felt like a cop-out. I can almost guarantee that someone's assistant was tasked with looking up how far into the future Star Trek had ever gone, no matter how incidental, and then they decided to jump past that to avoid any chance of "contradicting" anything. But unfortunately that means there are several hundred years of stories that could be told, but which are now all going to be prequels, too. :rolleyes:

Also, I think part of the problem stems from back when the theatrical and TV rights were separated with the Viacom/CBS split in 2006. Each company set off with their own plans based on completely different agendas and expectations. So there was no synergy when the 2009 film was a hit, or later when CBS was trying to boost its streaming service. Even now, with the companies back under one roof (at least for now, depending on whether or not Paramount gets chopped up again soon), they still seem to be uncertain how to re-merge the two sides of the franchise.

I dunno. I just think the powers that be have tried too hard to force Trek into a Marvel- or Star Wars-shaped box, when they already had a more effective model to draw inspiration from: Star Trek itself. Some of the newer movies and shows have been fine (I particularly like Beyond), but I feel like the franchise is spread too thin for its own good at the moment.
 
Last edited:

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
9,615
I've never understood why a major studio doesn't just do the work, and easily connect the dots to find out who would be a great fit for a Trek film franchise.

Ronald D Moore maybe, or at least in that wheelhouse of tried, and true Star Trek writers who were not only passionate about the series but could also write great stories!
 

Sam Favate

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
13,174
Real Name
Sam Favate
Don't expect Kinberg to do the work to keep Trek's history consistent. Take his much-derided (and with good reason) Dark Phoenix. In it, he (spoiler alert) kills off Jennifer Lawrence's Raven, but since these films are supposed to take place in the same timeline as the 2000-2003 trilogy, we know Raven lives and is played by Rebecca Romijn! He didn't care; he just needed the shock for his film. (Yes, yes, I know that it can be argued this is a different timeline after Days of Future Past, but that's a cop out. Audiences want the films to remain consistent.)

Hey, who knows? Maybe they'll surprise us. I wasn't thrilled that Avika (Batman & Robin) Goldsman was taking over Strange New Worlds, but that show has been terrific. He's really overcome the smudge on his record (and the Oscar for A Beautiful mind helped), but I still don't expect good things from Kinberg.

Ronald D Moore maybe, or at least in that wheelhouse of tried, and true Star Trek writers who were not only passionate about the series but could also write great stories!
I'm sure they don't want to pay the kind of money Moore would command. But I agree he would be the best choice.

o me, Discovery was ill-advised from the get-go. I agree wholeheartedly that it should never have been a prequel at all, let alone one set so close in time to the original series, and tied so directly into it by having the lead character be a member of Spock's family. And as you indicated, it then jumped so far into the future that it felt like a cop-out. I can almost guarantee that someone's assistant was tasked with looking up how far into the future Star Trek had ever gone, no matter how incidental, and then they decided to jump past that to avoid any chance of "contradicting" anything. But unfortunately that means there are several hundred years of stories that could be told, but which are now all going to be prequels, too.
Here's where Discovery loses me. They've jumped nearly one thousand years in the future -- that's an immense amount of time. That would be like knights from King Arthur's time jumping to our present day. They'd be lost, and would spend the rest of their lives playing catch-up, not being the heroes of the galaxy that they are portrayed as. (They also lose me with the intense focus on Burnham and everyone always talking about their feelings.)

Also, I think part of the problem stems from back when the theatrical and TV rights were separated with the Viacom/CBS split in 2006. Each company set off with their own plans based on completely different agendas and expectations. So there was no synergy when the 2009 film was a hit, or later when CBS was trying to boost its streaming service. Even now, with the companies back under one roof (at least for now, depending on whether or not Paramount gets chopped up again soon), they still seem to be uncertain how to re-merge the two sides of the franchise.
I fully expect this to happen again when Paramount reforms. Because no one learns the right lessons.
 

jayembee

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
7,105
Location
Hamster Shire
Real Name
Jerry
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.

Agreed 100%. Well, not 100%, given that none of that explains Days of Future Past, for which he's credited with the screenplay and co-story. 🤔
 

JimJasper

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
315
Location
Oregon
Real Name
Jim
I'm a sloppy, casual ST fan (did a marathon of all the films last year, beautifully on Blu-ray and 7.1 surround, seen maybe 1/2 of the TV shows) & had no idea about Simon Kinberg's fuck-it-up track record until reading ya'll's previous, lively, and wise conversations and zingers :emoji_upside_down:: .... so I'm somewhat with Marty S on this new announcement:
Martin Scorsese Lol GIF
 

Chip_HT

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,122
Real Name
Chip
(Yes, yes, I know that it can be argued this is a different timeline after Days of Future Past, but that's a cop out. Audiences want the films to remain consistent.)
It's not so much a cop out when the different timeline was established as part of the ending of DOFP. I also gave up on believing that the two X-Men series were part of the same unbroken timeline before First Class came out.

But the bigger issue with continuity, chronology, and consistency is how the four reboot X-Men movies were supposed to each be a decade apart. There's very little in the last two to indicate that they were set in the 80s and 90s. Not only did they not bother aging the cast appropriately, there wasn't any narrative reason for the time gaps between the movies.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
27,229
Location
Albany, NY
Seriously, they should just throw in the towel when it comes to Trek on the big screen.
I think there's still a place for Trek feature films, but not as the big budget blockbusters of the Kelvin timeline trilogy. The TNG-era films that cost $60 million or so each were the sweet spot for this franchise. There's been a lot of inflation since then, but that is somewhat balanced out by the fact that the cost and time commitment for visual effects has also come down significantly since then.

The upcoming Section 31 for Paramount+ is closer to the right approach: One marquee name to draw in wider audiences, a lesser known (and therefore cheaper) supporting cast, and taking advantage of the various Trek series's production resources to keep costs down.

I like the idea of Trek movies that tell one-off stories not well-suited to an ongoing narrative, too. I thought the TOS movies did a better job of that than the TNG movies, which sometimes felt like more expensive two-parters watched back to back.
 

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
636
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 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.


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.


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.
What folks fail to realize is that the credited writer isn’t the only one with input into the script. There are literally dozens of folks that can help shape a script Including other writers that aren’t credited. One writer has to tie it altogether and sometimes that can be a challenge unless one has 100% autonomy. Even when Kinberg was in charge of Dark Phoenix, I’m sure that others stuck their fingers in the pie and Kinberg had to try and make it work.

He has also written The Martian, X Men: Days of Future Past, Sherlock Holmes. He’s written some really bad films but he’s also written some good ones as well. Depending on what the producers want, the director wants and the studio wants, the quality will vary. It’s creating by committee sometimes. It doesn’t excuse the bad stuff he’s written but it also doesn’t mean he deserves the full blame. I personally feel that Kinberg’s biggest weakness occurs when he doesn’t collaborate with someone with a strong vision.

Having said all of that, I will cautiously await the results. I think the suits will sabotage this first.
 
Last edited:

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
636
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.
I personally feel Trek works best on the small screen. There are certain requirements for a movie and the story being told there that can crippled a film. Trek becomes another thing on the big screen except with the original series cast for the second, third, fourth and sixth films.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,690
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
He has also written The Martian, X Men: Days of Future Past, Sherlock Holmes.

A minor correction: The Martian was written by Drew Goddard from Andy Weir’s novel. Kinberg was originally contracted as producer of the film when Goddard was set to direct, but once Ridley Scott expressed interest, Goddard stepped aside from directing and Kinberg’s role as producer became more of a contractual billing as Scott brings his own people to the table for his films.

From an opinion standpoint my own personal one is that Days of Future Past wasn’t well written, especially compared to its immediate predecessor, but that the allure of that cast along with Bryan Singer’s ability to direct that kind of film wallpapered over it. But for me, I’d argue that’s an example of a film that should have been outstanding but turned out as merely being good enough.

I don’t think Sherlock Holmes was well-written but Guy Ritchie has such a stylistic imprint that like the movie or not, Ritchie’s input is what most stands out.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
27,229
Location
Albany, NY
What folks fail to realize is that the credited writer isn’t the only one with input into the script. There are literally dozens of folks that can help shape a script Including other writers that aren’t credited. One writer has to tie it altogether and sometimes that can be a challenge unless one has 100% autonomy. Even when Kinberg was in charge of Dark Phoenix, I’m sure that others stuck their fingers in the pie and Kinberg had to try and make it work.
The problem in Kinberg's case is that the quality of the end result is more or less inversely proportional to the level of control he had in the final product. Generally speaking: The more control he had, the less satisfying the end result.
 

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
636
The problem in Kinberg's case is that the quality of the end result is more or less inversely proportional to the level of control he had in the final product. Generally speaking: The more control he had, the less satisfying the end result.
i don’t disagree at least based on the limited projects he has had control over. I’d also point out that much the same as been said about Damon Lindelof and yet he managed to surprise folks with “Watchmen” and ”The Leftovers” after being roundly reamed by folks for “Lost” and “Prometheus”. Again, we don’t know how much input the suits and others had into some of those projects nor do we know all the circumstances around them either. I’d also say that even good writers have bad projects that either are bad from conception or go wrong during the process. I’m willing to give the guy a chance rather than condemn him based on past failures. Let’s see where it goes.
 

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
636
A minor correction: The Martian was written by Drew Goddard from Andy Weir’s novel. Kinberg was originally contracted as producer of the film when Goddard was set to direct, but once Ridley Scott expressed interest, Goddard stepped aside from directing and Kinberg’s role as producer became more of a contractual billing as Scott brings his own people to the table for his films.

From an opinion standpoint my own personal one is that Days of Future Past wasn’t well written, especially compared to its immediate predecessor, but that the allure of that cast along with Bryan Singer’s ability to direct that kind of film wallpapered over it. But for me, I’d argue that’s an example of a film that should have been outstanding but turned out as merely being good enough.

I don’t think Sherlock Holmes was well-written but Guy Ritchie has such a stylistic imprint that like the movie or not, Ritchie’s input is what most stands out.
I think “Sherlock Holmes” had a decent script. It’s difficult to quantify Kinberg’s contribution as well because…Guy Ritchie.

You and I will have to disagree about “Days” not being well written. ”The wall paper” may have well been part of the problem. Directors and cast members as well as suits have so much input into a script and the writer ends up being rewritten by uncredited folks, that it’s hard to pinpoint where problems occur with a movie. It’s art by committee.

Now, Om not going to claim that Kinberg is the best choice for the project but failure, like success, has many fathers.
 

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
636
I'm not sure about other situations, but I think on X-Men: Apocalypse, Kinberg stepped in as director when Bryan Singer would disappear for days at a time. Sometimes just showing up for work when others don't will earn you some favor with the bosses.



I know; I'm one of them. :) But I just feel like it's not all that cohesive anymore. It was never airtight; there are inconsistencies throughout the original series and movies. But it's not even really about specific continuity for me.

It's more that the franchise keeps eating its own tail instead of truly evolving. The current custodians constantly undermine their own efforts to enlarge the Trek universe by insisting on tying so many things directly into characters and events that have already been established, which instead makes it feel smaller.

To me, Discovery was ill-advised from the get-go. I agree wholeheartedly that it should never have been a prequel at all, let alone one set so close in time to the original series, and tied so directly into it by having the lead character be a member of Spock's family. And as you indicated, it then jumped so far into the future that it felt like a cop-out. I can almost guarantee that someone's assistant was tasked with looking up how far into the future Star Trek had ever gone, no matter how incidental, and then they decided to jump past that to avoid any chance of "contradicting" anything. But unfortunately that means there are several hundred years of stories that could be told, but which are now all going to be prequels, too. :rolleyes:

Also, I think part of the problem stems from back when the theatrical and TV rights were separated with the Viacom/CBS split in 2006. Each company set off with their own plans based on completely different agendas and expectations. So there was no synergy when the 2009 film was a hit, or later when CBS was trying to boost its streaming service. Even now, with the companies back under one roof (at least for now, depending on whether or not Paramount gets chopped up again soon), they still seem to be uncertain how to re-merge the two sides of the franchise.

I dunno. I just think the powers that be have tried too hard to force Trek into a Marvel- or Star Wars-shaped box, when they already had a more effective model to draw inspiration from: Star Trek itself. Some of the newer movies and shows have been fine (I particularly like Beyond), but I feel like the franchise is spread too thin for its own good at the moment.
I actually think that Fuller’s original conception for “Discovery” was pretty good vs. what we ended up getting.

To those folks panicking or at least expressing major concern over akinbertg-Id quote Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-don’t panic at least until we see if the demolition plans run through our planet. There have been so many folks involved in Star Trek of late that WH can even say if Kinberg will even stay the course?
 
Last edited:

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,745
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I’d also point out that much the same as been said about Damon Lindelof and yet he managed to surprise folks with “Watchmen” and ”The Leftovers” after being roundly reamed by folks for “Lost” and “Prometheus”.
Lost is not a good comparison because people only freaked out and whined about the (great) ending and not the bulk of the show. Not to say that everyone loved everything about the show but it's fair to say that the ending is what brought the most criticism by far.
 

Wayne Klein

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
636
Lost is not a good comparison because people only freaked out and whined about the (great) ending and not the bulk of the show. Not to say that everyone loved everything about the show but it's fair to say that the ending is what brought the most criticism by far.
Actually it is because folks began complaining about the third season of the show. As a watcher of the series, I remember the complaints. They didn’t just complain about the ending and many were upset well beyond that. You’ll also note that I mentioned more than “Lost” as well. Over the years Lindelof has faced criticism beyond “Lost” that he worked on. As much as I enjoyed “Lost” it was an example of a series without any plan until the third season and, even then, there were many loose ends.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,745
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Actually it is because folks began complaining about the third season of the show. As a watcher of the series, I remember the complaints. They didn’t just complain about the ending and many were upset well beyond that. You’ll also note that I mentioned more than “Lost” as well. Over the years Lindelof has faced criticism beyond “Lost” that he worked on. As much as I enjoyed “Lost” it was an example of a series without any plan until the third season and, even then, there were many loose ends.
Like I said, not everyone loved everything about the show (such as parts of S3) but the ending is still what brought the most criticism. And the complaints didn't start at the third season, some people were crying during the first season. The way some fans are, they were probably saying "The first half of the pilot was good but this show sucks now." when the second half of the pilot aired. :laugh:
 

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
357,850
Messages
5,144,613
Members
144,500
Latest member
Javilim01
Recent bookmarks
0
Top