• Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The strategy on the film side of things remains an incoherent mess, and I think we should all take this with a massive grain of salt as long as phrases like, “is in talks to,” are being thrown around.

    But sure, okay. At this point, I’ll take any progress over no progress.

    • @ValueSubtracted I keep thinking about this and I’m not sure where I land. I feel like we’re near “progress for progress’ sake”.

      First we had movies that sequeled our TV shows. No one objected unless a given movie was bad.

      Then post-Berman pre-streaming we did movies because no one had appetite to make new TV Trek. Fine.

      Now in the streaming era of multiple series, what purpose do disconnected-from-TV cinematic movies serve? Do they need to exist besides 💰?

      I don’t know what the answer is.

      • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Oh make no mistake, I’m on record as not really caring whether we ever see another theatrical Star Trek film. In my opinion, it’s a TV franchise at its core, and it can stay there as far as I’m concerned.

        But I’m pretty sick of the tedius “will they/won’t they” shenanigans at Paramount.

        • @ValueSubtracted I think my ramblings up there are my process of arriving where you already are.

          “Make Kelvin 4” is at least a plan, and there’s an audience that would like more. Would I watch it, sure. Would I care if it never gets made…not really.

          But when they start throwing these other movie ideas around, I don’t see a purpose. And people will say what they will about Kurtzman’s tenure as TV Trek overlord, but at least everything there had a purpose (whether one agrees with it or not).

          • usernamefactory@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Having TV and film Star Trek exist in separate timelines seems like a bad approach for getting people invested in the franchise as a whole. I wonder if that’s the reasoning for the early Federation time period. People who have only watched the Kelvin films can understand it as a prequel to those, but elements from it could just as easily spin-off into a streaming show without issue.

            • Bill Mason 🖖 🎶 📖 🥅@mastodon.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              @usernamefactory @startrek I don’t know if I agree with that premise. I’ve run into any number of people who became Trek fans in general by starting with Kelvin.

              That said, I don’t know that breaking the movies into *more* timelines is a great idea.

              And I personally would be skeptical that anything from the proposed movies would ever turn into a TV series. They are really operating in separate spaces right now. And P+ is shedding series faster than they’re adding them.