• Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 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
        4
        ·
        7 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
            2
            ·
            7 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
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 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.

              • usernamefactory@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Now that I’ve thought about it some more, it’s unlikely the movies would be making any decisions based off of what’s best for the streaming shows. That would probably be seen as the tail wagging the dog.

                That said, I’ve definitely encountered people who enjoyed the films but skipped the shows on account of not knowing where to start and finding the relationship too confusing. It would make sense to pair a successful “early days” movie with an “early days” spinoff series to lure some of that casual audience to streaming.