Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Star Trek News and Rumours

1567810

Posts

  • P5ych0p4thP5ych0p4th448 GermanyPosts: 341Member
    @Freak ... while I think, Voyager would be better regarded from a story standpoint, had they leaned more into their concept, I don’t think, it would have been the relative success that it was. While I can’t be sure, I believe, it would/should have gone the Stargate Universe route. And while I like that show and it would have probably gotten a third season were it not for the financial crisis ... most “fans” had long abandoned ship by the end of the second season. To this day a lot of Stargate fans hate that show simply because it’s different. And it’s the same with Trek. While objectively DS9 ist the superior show, it’s nowhere near as beloved as Voyager which gave fans pretty much more of the same.

    So ironically ... a better Voyager show might have actually been less successful.

    So in a way I applaud CBS for not just doing “more Trek” and taking risks by disregarding past formulae. It’s just that they’re doing it really really bad.
  • markmasseymarkmassey430 StaffordshirePosts: 560Member
    I think SGU would have had a better reception if it had ran alongside Atlantis for a couple of seasons... I think a lot of fans turned on it because they thought Atlantis had been cancelled to make way for stargate/battlestar galactica, only not as good... I have to say though that for me SGU is my favorite of the 3 shows.. But its a warning to established franchises that when you drastically change the format and tone of a show... you're risking not bringing the fans with you, especially when you're hostile to them like the stargate writers were.. I'm not sure DS9 would have lasted if they'd ended TNG and launched the show form there... It was allowed to marinade under the shadow of TNG and find its own feet, only to be overshadowed by voyager haha... now I'm sure there are a lot of trek fans who still don't care for DS9 but i think it's proved its point in the long run....

    I'm not sure I'd agree that a better voyager series would have been less successful.. I mean I totally get what you're saying @P5ych0p4th.. if they made voyager a few years later I doubt that it would have been allowed to limp along for seven seasons... i don't think voyager is more beloved because its more of the same self contained "safer" episodes... it's just on a ship.. and that's what people watch star trek for? "mostly" I don't think that having poor harry kim promoted a few times throughout the seasons would have done any harm to viewer numbers, or some deeper stories involving the cast, or doing that bloody year of hell season (what were they thinking)..... but we all know how the show was ran..

    but i know from my kids who will just sit and watch a tng or voyager episodes and skip ds9.. that there is something captivating about watching people on a ship exploring space.... so i can understand why ds9 is overlooked... even though its the one that raises everything up haha...

    I think we can all agree that none of us want trek to just go back and copy and paste the tos/tng style.... that's just how shows were in the 80's and 90's.. I just want good scif on a ship (or station, or anywhere) with a cast that I enjoy watching..... Again I don't see how that's so difficult? and again here i am crying about star trek hahahaha...!!!!!!!!!! grrrrr !!!!!!

    P5ych0p4th
  • FreakFreak1081 Posts: 4,358Member
    edited December 2020 #274
    Voyager was not that successful when it came out compared to past Trek (I think it was doing a little better than DS9 in rating but then that was due to how Trek was being broadcasted in the States at the time. Both shows where in syndication and the station that aired them did not always air them in order. This made watching DS9 harder to follow with it continues story, instead of story of the week that you got from other Star Trek shows.), but Voyager was doing better than most show on at the time in rating. I'll admit that I stopped watching Voyager during Season 5, because it was not giving me anything new. (I have since watched all of it multiple times.)
    With the exception that it was getting a little tired for me, the one thing that really bugged the hell out me about the show was each week something happen. The ship was damaged or what not and then the following week we see the ship look like it just come out of Spacedock brand new.
    But it was Berman that wanted that. Paramount had not yet bought CBS so no interference form them yet.

    I know your more of a Voyager fan than DS9, but I would say like Voyager. They are equally loved, But being a DS9 fan I would say it more beloved.
    The only real way to answer which is beloved more is to do a poll.
    Since both shows have gone off the air, they have gain more fans though streaming sites. (A lot fans that did not like DS9 first time round due to the way it aired have come round to liking it. Because they can now follow the story as it was meant to be told.)
    We all know Voyager is the most popular Trek show on Netflix last year, but did you know DS9 is a close second with a difference of views being in the hundreds and not thousands.

    If Voyager had the same formula in Story as DS9. Your right it might not have been as successful. But again that down to how the show was aired back then. Just look at Ronald D Moore, BSG. Massive success so if it was shown right Voyager in this style of story telling could have been bigger than it was.
    I also think SG:U is a bad example. Yeah it very different to SG-1 and SG:A, but it was a more personal story about the crew, it was also a show ahead of it time. I though the first season was plain bad and almost stopped watching because, if you remove the Stargate it was not Stargate show. But by the second season they started to put those elements that made SG-1 and SG:A so loved back in and retain the original show premises and it got much better. Unfortunately it was too late for the show.

    As for CBS involvement it has been bad from the start. First they never pick up TOS when Roddenberry went to them. (It originally aired on NBC.)
    Then after Viacom had bought CBS and started moving it Paramount TV wing over to them, they started to interfere with Enterprise. So we never got the show it was meant to be. I think that show would have be accepted more if CBS did not interfere from the start. When they finally did stop interfering, Enterprise started to get better, but alas Berman and Moonves had a falling out and Enterprise became the causality from that.
    CBS has never been good for Trek. The deal with Bad Robot, which brought Secret Hideout to make current Trek show. Not having anyone from classic Trek involved is another huge mistake.

    Before you say, But they had Bryan Fuller and Nicholas Meyer involved with Discovery. Have you ever wonder way they where let go?
    They were let go because of the deal CBS had made with Paramount and Bad Robot. Part of that deal was that CBS could not make a Star Trek show for ten years after Star Trek 09 has come out. Something they did not care about at the time as they had no plans to make more Star Trek Shows.
    When did CBS announce Discovery?
    2016, which meant they were in breach of contact. Given that JJ had given up on Trek, he handed it over to Kurtzman and Secret Hideout. CBS was not going to drop Discovery, because they needed it for their streaming service. So instead of continuing to be in breach of contract, Kurtzman step in and the first thing he did was fire Brian Fuller and Nicholas Meyer. But instead of starting from scratch as he now had a deadline to have the show out, he bastedised what they had done. (This is why Fuller name is on the show as co-creator. He hates that fact, but happy accepted the check that come in post each month because of it.)
    It should also be noted that since Secret Hideout has taken over Star Trek, nothing has meet it deadline and everything has been over budget.

    In sort everything currently wrong with Trek is down to CBS. But thankfully Viacom has now remerged and Shari Redstone has personally hire Emma Watson to sort Trek out. Will she?
    Only time will tell.

    Post edited by Freak on
  • admiral hortonadmiral horton191 Posts: 125Member
    What i am going to say will get alot of heat, but I have to say it.
    Star trek must be taken put of the hand of CBS. They r purposely doing everything they can to drive the long time trek fans away. I say that because virtually everything thing they do is a slap in the face to trek fans, JJ, DSC, Picard. They r wanting I believe to run Star Trek so far into the ground that nothing can revive it. If they want Star Trek to be a money maker that DSC, and Picard (Picard being the not a slap but a punch to the face) must be declared alternative timeline like to crap JJ brought out and get Star Trek back to the days of TNG, DS9, VOY, and put some money into it. Paramount, and CBS want Star Trek to make money, but dont want to put any money into the shows and movies, what do u think is going to happen when u cant make a good show, or movie, without spending money to make it. Star Trek must be brought by someone or company that loves and respects the franchise and make shows and movies the fans want to see. Listen to the fan and it will be a money maker.
    FreakpsCargile
  • P5ych0p4thP5ych0p4th448 GermanyPosts: 341Member
    @admiral horton ... I don’t think, that’s a very controversial opinion here 😁
  • markmasseymarkmassey430 StaffordshirePosts: 560Member
    one thing you can't say about new trek is that it's cheap.... well the budgets any way.... lol
  • FreakFreak1081 Posts: 4,358Member
    No it not cheap, but the money is not being spent on the show. It's going to the producers.
    I have never seen a show with 23 producer until this one.
  • P5ych0p4thP5ych0p4th448 GermanyPosts: 341Member
    Freak wrote: »
    No it not cheap, but the money is not being spent on the show. It's going to the producers.
    I have never seen a show with 23 producer until this one.

    I wouldn’t even say that, @Freak ... say what you will about Discovery for example, but all that money does end up on screen. Especially the new season has some gorgeous shots. My main problem is the writing. But that’s not something you can easily fix with money.

    @markmassey ... as you say, I don’t know, if Picard IS cheap, but g sure looks like it. I was shocked, how bad it looked in parts. The cheap looking costumes, the uninspired production design, the props, that look like toys. Even the cgi lay bad in parts. I’ve seen plenty of ships on this side, that were of a way higher quality than that fleets at the end.
  • FreakFreak1081 Posts: 4,358Member
    edited December 2020 #280
    @P5ych0p4th, have to disagree. Being and producer or EP get you a lot of cheddar and that comes from the Budget. With having 23 producers that a huge chunk of change that taken from the budget.
    Now the reason it looks good is because of the first season. Netflix payed for it and they got that cinematic look. Kurtzman also changed the camera they where using to help in this for season two. So that huge pay out for the producer was not an issue at first.

    However each season the budget has been cut, and it really showing in Season 3. We been to Earth and all we got were VFX shots made for Picard with a few changes. (The Tree.) but with the cast, all we saw was them in the garden with a huge tree.
    We go to Trill, instead of using the Matt Painting we saw in DS9 we see nothing of the planet surface itself except for another garden and the cave where the symbionts lived. (Though I have to admit that the cave did look very similar to the one seen in DS9. But that would not have been expensive to produced.)
    Then we go to Vulcan or whatever it call now and instead of seeing anything new or interesting about Vulcan. Everything takes place on the Discovery, on sets we have seen before.
    They could have very easily done something on Vulcan with a bit of green screen. Below is a test shot for Axanar feature film that was never made due to the law suit. It was Directed by Robert Mayer Burnett and was done in a parking lot with green screen. FX was done by old Scfi-Meshes Member Tobias Richter. This was also done with a fraction of the budget that Discovery has.



    They could very easily give us something new and different and carry on world building the Star Trek Universe. But they don't because the producers are taking a huge cut of the budget and therefore it not being shown on screen.
    Post edited by Freak on
  • admiral hortonadmiral horton191 Posts: 125Member
    P5ych0p4th wrote: »
    @admiral horton ... I don’t think, that’s a very controversial opinion here 😁

    Well its good to see some half sane people here
    (I say half sane because we r all crazy it justs depends on what level you r at) :)
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    Star Trek: Lower Decks will finally be available internationally on Amazon Prime Video on January 22

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amazon-beams-up-star-trek-lower-decks-animated-series-for-multiple-territories
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • FreakFreak1081 Posts: 4,358Member
    I have already seen it, so won't be seeing on Prime. It not great Trek, but it still better than any of the live action crap coming out of Secret Hideout.

    The other day I heard a Rumour that Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks are coming to Netflix in the US at some point in early 2021.
    My response to that was.
    Why would they do that? CBSAA is getting rebranded as Paramount Plus and current Trek is there flagship franchise. So why would they make a deal for it to go on Netflix on the States?
    It make no scene, if they stuck everything there, there is not incentive for people subscribe to Paramount Plus. (Not that current Trek is much incentive to sign up.) So I take this Rumour as Fake, especially given Netflix dose not want anything to do with Current Trek.
    @Guerrilla post above is a prime example of that. Remember Netflix get first choice on any new Trek shows and they passed on Picard and Lower Decks. I also won't be surprise if Amazon got it for Peanuts and nowhere near what CBS originally wanted to sell it for.
  • markmasseymarkmassey430 StaffordshirePosts: 560Member
    no no no..... i cant read... i've not watched them yet i made the mistake of starting a full re watch last week.... half way through season 2......... torturing myself haha
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    Freak wrote: »
    @Guerrilla post above is a prime example of that. Remember Netflix get first choice on any new Trek shows and they passed on Picard and Lower Decks. I also won't be surprise if Amazon got it for Peanuts and nowhere near what CBS originally wanted to sell it for.

    An Amazon... Prime example? :D

    ... :|

    I'm just glad we're getting Lower Decks over here. :tongue:

    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    Looks like twitter embeds are busted again. Should sort themselves out at some point though.

    Here's Discovery S4

    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • FreakFreak1081 Posts: 4,358Member
    I'll watch Lower Decks, as it the closet to Trek pre 2005.
    But Picard and Discovery, I am out.
  • sorceress21sorceress21268 Posts: 577Member
    Freak wrote: »
    I'll watch Lower Decks, as it the closet to Trek pre 2005.
    But Picard and Discovery, I am out.

    Me and you both! I couldn't even get through Discovery Season 3. The left wing wokeness bullshit just stunk the whole thing up beyond my ability to tolerate. It was just terrible television period.
  • FreakFreak1081 Posts: 4,358Member
    I can't even put into words how bad they are.
    Then you add the crying and hugging every episode. Are these show meant to be Star Trek or some WB teen drama?
  • sorceress21sorceress21268 Posts: 577Member
    Freak wrote: »
    I can't even put into words how bad they are.
    Then you add the crying and hugging every episode. Are these show meant to be Star Trek or some WB teen drama?

    Captain Burnham addressing aliens: Attention alien vessel, this is Captain Burnham of the Federation Starship Discovery. While I appreciate that you are angry with us and that our actions of destroying your planet killing machine that you have launched against Earth may certainly be viewed as racist towards trees, I urge you to pause your attack for a short period while my command crew is able to retreat into their safe spaces and use their crying towels for a short time. After they have hugged each other enough they will return to their stations and be able to commence this battle under the following conditions:

    1 - You confiscate all assault weapons from your crew because no one needs an assault rifle.
    2 - During battle you refer to me, my crew and our ship as them or they.
    3 - You accept my apology that everyone on board the discovery was not born a blob of protoplasmic Amoeba creatures like yourselves because that certainly makes us racists.
    4 - Allow us to travel back in time, apprehend Donald J. Trump and force him to undergo diversity training under your supervision.

    Alien Commander addressing, *ahem*, "It's" bridge crew: Weapons! Quantum torpedos FIRE! ALL OF THEM! And for the love of all that's holy, fuckin hurry!

    psCargile
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    Me and you both! I couldn't even get through Discovery Season 3. The left wing wokeness bullshit just stunk the whole thing up beyond my ability to tolerate. It was just terrible television period.

    Could we not do the whole Fox News Culture War routine here? It's unnecessary and comes off really hostile, which is why I'd really rather not have anything to do with it in my internet house. Keep that shit in comment sections and social media, if you have to, but this is not the place.

    Here's the salient bit from the GD rules:
    SFM is a on-topic forum
    Those topic being 3D, Art and Science Fiction. We're not saying that's all you can ever talk about, but we do reserve the right to close threads that aren't on topic.

    Banned topics
    Obviously anything illegal, pornographic and the stuff specifically mentioned as no-go in the Terms of Service. We would rather you didn't post politics, religion or anything that people generally feel strongly enough to fight on the Internet about, and rarely change their minds. We're not saying that always happens, but often enough the result is a shitshow and a closed thread. If you feel your post is going to ruffle some feathers, maybe take a minute to think about whether or not it's really necessary (it's not.). Ask yourself, whether it is strategic or cathartic? If you absolutely must post it, try Facebook or Twitter instead*?

    *(Not our Facebook or Twitter though)

    On disagreements
    Disagreeing is fine, even encouraged at times. Just don't be a dick about it. If you can't make your argument without resorting to personal insults, your argument isn't worth making, nor is it welcome on the forum.

    No one is saying you can't dislike Star Trek (or other scifi shows) or voice that dislike, but if you can't get that point across without resorting to name calling and waging some pointless culture war against the libs, I'm afraid you're going to have to do it somewhere else.
    darkthunderLizzy777P5ych0p4th
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • sorceress21sorceress21268 Posts: 577Member
    edited April 11 #294
    Guerrilla wrote: »
    Me and you both! I couldn't even get through Discovery Season 3. The left wing wokeness bullshit just stunk the whole thing up beyond my ability to tolerate. It was just terrible television period.

    Could we not do the whole Fox News Culture War routine here? It's unnecessary and comes off really hostile, which is why I'd really rather not have anything to do with it in my internet house. Keep that shit in comment sections and social media, if you have to, but this is not the place.

    Here's the salient bit from the GD rules:
    SFM is a on-topic forum
    Those topic being 3D, Art and Science Fiction. We're not saying that's all you can ever talk about, but we do reserve the right to close threads that aren't on topic.

    Banned topics
    Obviously anything illegal, pornographic and the stuff specifically mentioned as no-go in the Terms of Service. We would rather you didn't post politics, religion or anything that people generally feel strongly enough to fight on the Internet about, and rarely change their minds. We're not saying that always happens, but often enough the result is a shitshow and a closed thread. If you feel your post is going to ruffle some feathers, maybe take a minute to think about whether or not it's really necessary (it's not.). Ask yourself, whether it is strategic or cathartic? If you absolutely must post it, try Facebook or Twitter instead*?

    *(Not our Facebook or Twitter though)

    On disagreements
    Disagreeing is fine, even encouraged at times. Just don't be a dick about it. If you can't make your argument without resorting to personal insults, your argument isn't worth making, nor is it welcome on the forum.

    No one is saying you can't dislike Star Trek (or other scifi shows) or voice that dislike, but if you can't get that point across without resorting to name calling and waging some pointless culture war against the libs, I'm afraid you're going to have to do it somewhere else.

    Name calling? Not following you on that one. I called no one a name.

    I am NOT the one who decided to politicize a scifi TV show and I'm pretty sure regardless of one's political perspective the average Trek fan doesn't want it in the show. So let me get this straight, I pointed out how disgusted I am that the producers have politicized Star Trek which is exactly what you don't like and that's an issue? For the record I could care less which side of the Right vs. Left culture war Trek favors because they should favor neither. Had Discovery favored the Right, I would have made fun of that side with the same level of credulity.

    You launched an unfair gripe at me sir. I did not violate the terms of service.
    Post edited by sorceress21 on
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    edited April 11 #295
    Let's start with this one.
    You launched an unfair gripe at me sir. I did not violate the terms of service.

    Well, no. I responded to multiple complaints about the hostile tone that seemed to have less to do with Star Trek and more to do with the shit you see on Facebook and comment sections.

    As far as TOS goes, the Community Guidelines say:
    Guerrilla wrote: »
    About These Rules
    This is not a complete list of what you can and cannot do on these forums, nor is it really meant to be. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, even if there is not a specific rule about their particular misdeeds in this document. Rules lawyering and seeing just how far you can push the rules will, more often than not, result in a worse outcome for you. We do strive for fair moderation at all times, but this is a privately owned forum, and we really don't owe anyone an online platform. Using this forum is a privilege, not a right.
    Name calling? Not following you on that one. I called no one a name.
    It was more of of a general you. If a point requires, for example, name calling or silly culture war rhetoric to go along with it, it's not a very good point nor is it welcome here.
    I am NOT the one who decided to politicize a scifi TV show and I'm pretty sure regardless of one's political perspective the average Trek fan doesn't want it in the show.
    You are the one who decided to go with the left wing wokeness bullshit rhetoric here though. You reckon stuff like left wing wokeness bullshit, Holly-leftist-democrap-wood, Hollycommiewood is perfectly neutral thing to drop into casual conversations with strangers and doesn't come off as really fucking belligerent? That's a pretty big assumption you're making about the average Trek fan too.
    So let me get this straight, I pointed out how disgusted I am that the producers have politicized Star Trek which is exactly what you don't like and that's an issue? For the record I could care less which side of the Right vs. Left culture war Trek favors because they should favor neither. Had Discovery favored the Right, I would have made fun of that side with the same level of credulity.

    Well, no. The issue is I have zero interest in hosting this asinine culture war shit on my site. The outcome is actually already determined. We'll have no more of this on the forums. Whether we accomplish that by you working on your tone and rhetoric, abstaining from posting in some or all topics or me making those decisions for you, is up to you.
    Post edited by Guerrilla on
    P5ych0p4thLizzy777darkthunder
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • darkthunderdarkthunder367 SwedenPosts: 77Member
    edited April 11 #296
    I am NOT the one who decided to politicize a scifi TV show and I'm pretty sure regardless of one's political perspective the average Trek fan doesn't want it in the show.
    For someone griping so much about the so-called "left wing woke bs" in modern day Trek shows, clearly never paid attention to the OLD day Trek shows. Or have you conveniently forgotten about the "black on the left side, white on the right side" aliens of TOS, or Kirk and Uhura's infamous kiss etc. Flash forward to TNG, and you have the controversial "Code of Honor" episode, Riker courting a Genaii "female" as an allegory to transgenders, Jadzia and Lenara's kiss in DS9 etc.

    Politics has been a part of Trek since the very start. If you have an issue with politics in Trek, you have an issue with Trek. I'd suggest walking away and finding some other form of entertainment devoid of political involvement. Trek has always had, and always will have political allegory to modern day issues. When done right, it can be extremely satisfying (Guinan and Picard's chat regarding slavery in Measure of a Man comes to mind).
    Post edited by darkthunder on
    Lizzy777Comco
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    edited April 12 #297
    Not helping. The issue at hand is quality of discussion, not quality of Star Trek.
    Post edited by Guerrilla on
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • FreakFreak1081 Posts: 4,358Member
    Anyway back on Trek News Topic.
    It has been annoucned that Paramount is doing another Star Trek Movie with a 2023 release date. On top of that, Bad Robot are retruning to make it.

    I don't know about you guys, but I don't think this is going to happen and here why.

    1. Since Beyond came out how many movies have been anounced? I lost count but we got to be getting into the double digit area. Why did those projects go nowhere? Simple reason they can't get the funnding for them.
    2. Funnding is a big issues for ViacomCBS at the moment. Their stock is in the toilet and last time I checked it still going down and worth half of what it was at the start of the year. which means Not just Star Trek but other shows and films are also going to have issues getting investors. (though films that have a track record of making money like the Mission Impossiable franchise or NCIS will. Star Trek is not what it once was before JJ and Kurtzman got hold of it.)
    3. With the way the world currently is even if they do manage to get backer, they can't make a film for $200 Million, as the film need to make triple it budget to break even. Plus while the three Kelvin movies did make a profit, it was not as much as Paramount had hoped for. (they basicly just made their money back plus a few million more. With each following film making less.) So with cinema at half capacity for the time being and with the threat of more Lockdowns, they are never going to make the money they need at the theater for at least two years maybe more.
    4. The film needs to be low budget around the $20 to $50 million mark with the current climate, this is something Bad Robot are unable to do. Also with the budget they won't get the Kelvin cast back, which is one of the reason Chris Pine refused to come back.

    So no I don't think this will happen.
    I will admit that I will be surprised if they happens and even more suprised if it truns out to be good. (But I don't think that will happen with the current level of writing on Trek.)

    But if it does happen I hope it Nicolas Meyer Ceti Alpha V project, tought that was a three part TV movie.
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla704 HelsinkiPosts: 2,775Administrator
    Look on the bright side, I don't think there's ever been this much Star Trek in pre-production. :p

    (or actually in production, but that made for a better punchline)
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • P5ych0p4thP5ych0p4th448 GermanyPosts: 341Member
    @Freak

    Well ...

    1. Films constantly don't get made. That's nothing speacial. Look at how many Supermans, Spidermans or Batmans didn't get made. Or all those Trek projects between movies in the Ninetys that went nowhere. I believe there were at least two Star Trek 10s before Nemesis that didn't happen for one reason or another. And Nemesis wouldnt have happened if Steward insisted on being paid what he's worth (which is exactly what Pine did do) ... so really ... it's a longer hiatus than before but appart from that nothing special.

    2. The ViacomCBS Stock is pretty steady around 50 Dollars since 2016. It went down hard in the pandaemic and then had an all thime high at the End of march after which it fell back to the usual 40-50 Bucks. So really nothing special there. No realy growth but nothing that would worry any investors. But feel free to short the shit out of that thing, if you think it'll go down hard :-D

    3. The first two Kelvin movies made a huge profit. Just not the Billion Paramount was hoping for. But that was a stupid goal to begin with. But they did certainly not just break even. Moreover Beyond would have easily made a bigger profit had it been marketed properly and had they not canceled Star Trek 3s inbetween Into Darkness and Beyond that were well into production. That movie didn't need to cost over 200 Million. That was just bad management.

    4. Bad Robot has produced plenty of (relatively) low budget films that were at least moderate successes. I would like to see them give Trek this treatment. But here I agree ... I don't see this happening

    So much from me ... over and out
  • ViperViper1265 Posts: 688Administrator
    There was never an actual announcement for movies after Beyond. Just rumors and the news that Tarantino was interested in doing a Trek movie. This is the first actual official news that a movie is coming.
Sign In or Register to comment.