|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 10, 2024 22:12:51 GMT -5
Since for all intents and purposes everything before the events of the 2009 movie are identical to the Prime Universe, does it really need the Kelvin Universe distinction? Presumably this would be the post-Enterprise, pre-Discovery era.
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Jan 10, 2024 22:27:47 GMT -5
I mean, at least it's not the Quentin Tarantino version that seemed to only exist because Tarantino really wanted to hear Spock say the n-word.
I honestly always wanted to see a version of the TNG crew in the Kelvinverse. In addition to the re-casts, it would just be interesting to see how their lives would be re-imagined in the new universe.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 10, 2024 23:01:15 GMT -5
I honestly always wanted to see a version of the TNG crew in the Kelvinverse. In addition to the re-casts, it would just be interesting to see how their lives would be re-imagined in the new universe. Just seeing how things would be reimagined on a technological scale would be interesting. The Enterprise in the first three Kelvinverse movies was larger than the Enterprise-D and more technologically advanced, so I'd definitely be curious as to how an additional 80 years of development would skew things further away from the Prime Universe.
|
|
|
Post by Lizuka #BLM on Jan 10, 2024 23:02:50 GMT -5
I'd say maybe if it's good I'll catch it streaming but all these years later I still haven't gotten the taste of Into Darkness out of my mouth enough to bother with Beyond so I doubt I would.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 10, 2024 23:03:26 GMT -5
Didn't they have Kelvin-verse takes on the 24th century crews in the IDW comics or was that their prime universe counterparts?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 10, 2024 23:12:55 GMT -5
Prime universe....Kelvin universe.
Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Jan 11, 2024 4:11:54 GMT -5
Since for all intents and purposes everything before the events of the 2009 movie are identical to the Prime Universe, does it really need the Kelvin Universe distinction? Presumably this would be the post-Enterprise, pre-Discovery era. I believe Abrams said in an interview that the ripples from the time change affected the past as well. So ok, yeah sure.
|
|
|
Post by Lizuka #BLM on Jan 11, 2024 4:13:42 GMT -5
Since for all intents and purposes everything before the events of the 2009 movie are identical to the Prime Universe, does it really need the Kelvin Universe distinction? Presumably this would be the post-Enterprise, pre-Discovery era. I believe Abrams said in an interview that the ripples from the time change affected the past as well. So ok, yeah sure. Eh, it's Star Trek, its whole chronology at this point is basically just a middle finger and time travel does whatever it wants on a case-by-case basis so whatever.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Jan 11, 2024 4:34:15 GMT -5
I don't really care about the early days of starfleet (I don't need or want a backstory or history of it), I want to explore strange new worlds and go further into the future.
|
|
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Jan 11, 2024 8:04:19 GMT -5
Didn't they have Kelvin-verse takes on the 24th century crews in the IDW comics or was that their prime universe counterparts? There was "The Q Gambit", a crossover between the Kelvinverse Enterprise and Deep Space 9, re-imagining the DS9 crew in the Kelvinverse timeline. It was fun, and I really liked the revelation that the Klingons had conquered Earth and the Federation in the 24th century, seems like a great environment to tell new and different stories with. But the only TNG characters to appear were Q, Worf and a brief cameo from Picard at the end. I'd love to see an entire story of what the TNG Enterprise crew were doing around then. I believe Abrams said in an interview that the ripples from the time change affected the past as well. So ok, yeah sure. I don't understand how this could work. Does he have any spaghetti-based analogies for which to demonstrate this by?
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,739
|
Post by schma on Jan 11, 2024 9:38:42 GMT -5
Wasn't Abrams the guy who basically said, he was never really a fan of Star Trek and didn't really get it and he and his friends were all fans of Star Wars?
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jan 11, 2024 9:56:11 GMT -5
Wasn't Abrams the guy who basically said, he was never really a fan of Star Trek and didn't really get it and he and his friends were all fans of Star Wars? I watched Star Trek and thought "Man this guy would make a much better Star Wars movie than Star Trek movie" So sorry for putting that out into the universe everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 11, 2024 15:30:40 GMT -5
Wasn't Abrams the guy who basically said, he was never really a fan of Star Trek and didn't really get it and he and his friends were all fans of Star Wars? Pretty much: I do understand his point. Star Trek, for the most part, isn't an adventure franchise. It's more cerebral and philosophical without ever being hard sci-fi, and that's a tough line to toe when it comes to movies. Making his Star Trek movies simple action-adventure movies paid off, for the most part, even if they weren't particularly good Trek movies.
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Jan 11, 2024 15:43:37 GMT -5
As I understand it the rights to Star Trek were split at some point. So TV shows have the rights to the original universe while any movies have to be Kelvinverse. So this movie takes place there even when it technically shouldnt.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 11, 2024 15:54:37 GMT -5
As I understand it the rights to Star Trek were split at some point. So TV shows have the rights to the original universe while any movies have to be Kelvinverse. So this movie takes place there even when it technically shouldnt. The rights were split when Viacom and CBS were spun off from each other in 2005. Viacom retained the rights to the movies and CBS retained the rights to the shows. When Viacom and CBS re-merged in 2019 and became Paramount Global the rights issues were resolved, which is why Star Trek: Picard was a side-sequel of sorts to the 2009 movie.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 11, 2024 15:55:42 GMT -5
As I understand it the rights to Star Trek were split at some point. So TV shows have the rights to the original universe while any movies have to be Kelvinverse. So this movie takes place there even when it technically shouldnt. Basically the TV rights belonged to CBS and the movie rights to Viacom. But that's no longer a thing with the companies re-merging into Paramount. And there is a Picard-based movie being worked on now.
I think keeping the Kelvinverse going is more that Star Trek 2009 was a massive hit and Beyond was pretty well-liked by the fandom even if Into Darkness sucked. Plus it did have a good cast. But I've also had enough of JJ Abrams to last me a lifetime even if he's not directly involved with this movie.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 11, 2024 16:15:14 GMT -5
I think keeping the Kelvinverse going is more that Star Trek 2009 was a massive hit and Beyond was pretty well-liked by the fandom even if Into Darkness sucked. Plus it did have a good cast. The Kelvinverse movies are the top three highest-grossing Trek movies of all time, so it's kind of a no-brainer to keep it going. The fourth movie is also confirmed to still be in development, but the cast is ultimately the problem – unlike the TOS and TNG movies where very few of the casts had anything else going on, the Kelvinverse cast are both busy and expensive.
|
|
CMWaters
Ozymandius
Rolled a Seven, Beat the Ads.
Bald and busy
Posts: 63,070
|
Post by CMWaters on Jan 11, 2024 16:33:20 GMT -5
I think keeping the Kelvinverse going is more that Star Trek 2009 was a massive hit and Beyond was pretty well-liked by the fandom even if Into Darkness sucked. Plus it did have a good cast. The Kelvinverse movies are the top three highest-grossing Trek movies of all time, so it's kind of a no-brainer to keep it going. The fourth movie is also confirmed to still be in development, but the cast is ultimately the problem – unlike the TOS and TNG movies where very few of the casts had anything else going on, the Kelvinverse cast are both busy and expensive. Not to mention the loss of one of them way too early.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 11, 2024 23:11:28 GMT -5
Wasn't Abrams the guy who basically said, he was never really a fan of Star Trek and didn't really get it and he and his friends were all fans of Star Wars? I watched Star Trek and thought "Man this guy would make a much better Star Wars movie than Star Trek movie" So sorry for putting that out into the universe everyone. In my head canon, Abrams' Star Trek and Star Wars are part of a new franchise called Star Walks. The Walkies are deadly enemies of the Mooners, fans of Zack Snyder's new sci fi epic.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,739
|
Post by schma on Jan 12, 2024 3:03:21 GMT -5
Wasn't Abrams the guy who basically said, he was never really a fan of Star Trek and didn't really get it and he and his friends were all fans of Star Wars? Pretty much: I do understand his point. Star Trek, for the most part, isn't an adventure franchise. It's more cerebral and philosophical without ever being hard sci-fi, and that's a tough line to toe when it comes to movies. Making his Star Trek movies simple action-adventure movies paid off, for the most part, even if they weren't particularly good Trek movies. While it's not an adventure series, there is room for adventure within it. At the end of the day though the core concepts of Star Trek are not difficult to parse. Now it sounds like he came of age in an era where there was only the original series and in that period I can see it seeming campy. I never had much interest in the ToS despite devouring the 90s series. However, even the original series handled plenty of deadly serious topics. I'm all for adaptations attempting to reach a broader audience, but I don't fully agree with him here. It's become increasingly difficult to find sci-fi that is largely optimistic, which is part of what makes Star Trek so special. It acknowledges human failings and the history is quite dark, but there's light at the end of the tunnel. Star Trek and Star Wars have both greatly influenced each other despite obvious differences and I've always had room in my heart for both (I was genuinely surprised when I learned of fan battles between the two). I was even fine with the movies. They certainly benefitted from being able to hire movie stars. That said, I was never particularly enthused with his outlook. I don't expect him to watch every episode ever, but even having a basic appreciation for the entity you're adapting would be something.
|
|