Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (Page 2 of 7)

They could only really get upset about the stuff that they own. The hotel wasn't charging for anything for Sliders. They were charging you for space, which had nothing to do with Sliders. And as for world building... nope. They wouldn't own those worlds either. They would own the Sliders brand and the characters, but you own all of the original material, including worlds, dialogue, etc. You could sue them if they use that stuff.

I have to say, I tried watching Renegades last night and while I think it's impressive in terms of "fans goofing around and making a movie", I wasn't impressed by the overall quality of it as a film. In fact, I had to turn it off. Here's the thing. With fanfic, I would have to believe that a story takes place in that world in order to be impressed. The writing would have to look and feel like the official work of the Star Trek writers. Of course, there are shipper fics and other niche fanfics which are completely off the rails, but I've never been a fan of those.

So when it comes to a fan film, I have to have the same standard. It's either one of the goofy niche projects that we're not even supposed to take seriously, or it's supposed to look and feel like a plausible addition to that universe. This is a massive challenge, but it's one that they took on. And I just didn't feel it.

I mean, it's great in terms of getting fans together and making a fan film. But that's not what this was supposed to be. This movie had a significant budget and "real" actors.

How is it in any way not clear that the Axanar guy really paid himself a salary? It's in his FAQ on his own website. http://www.axanarproductions.com/captai … -7th-2016/

I think it is unbelievable how people keep claiming the issue is muddy or unclear when the information is plain as day on Axanar's own website: they took crowdsourced funds for an unlicensed STAR TREK film and paid themselves.

**

I totally agree that the fan film restrictions are too extreme. The restrictions on length and what props and costumes can be used and what content can be shown are absurd -- no official TREK film could have been made under those restrictions, such as any film or episode where McCoy and Kirk share a drink.

I've said before that STAR TREK is Paramount's house and they have every right to make their rules as extreme as they like as long as they're not illegal. I will say, however, that STAR TREK is becoming a house I wouldn't visit -- but I will defend to the end their right to make their house that way.

I don't think it warrants its own post, but I really enjoyed Star Trek: Beyond.  I thought it was a lot of fun, and it was the most complete movie of the series IMO.  Some pretty cool ties to the Trek universe as a whole(including a few references to Enterprise).

Anton Yelchin was great.  Made me really sad that he's gone.

The designation doesn't mean much; there were ships from the TOS era still operating in the Next Generation era.  Usually the most obvious answer is true, so I think it will end up being an adaptation of "Planet of the Titans" which was an abandoned attempt to make a Star Trek feature film in 1976.  The ship design meant for that film is practically identical to the Discovery.

If Titans is the case, that would put the time frame set between TOS and the first Star Trek film.

I'd actually like to see a TOS era ship trying to survive in the TNG/DS9/VOY era.  We've always been on a ship that's been technologically superior.  The Enterprise was the Starfleet flagship, DS9 and the Defiant were pretty tough, and Voyager was the most advanced ship in the Delta Quadrant it seemed like.

Sorta like Beyond, actually.  What if a crew crashed and had to escape on a TOS-era ship.  They save the day and return to Earth.  And due to the Dominion War or whatever, they can't give them a new ship.  The new captain volunteers to use the old ship.  So they're using an outdated ship in a really uncertain time.  That would be cool, I think.

But, yeah, TF is probably right.  I've heard that story too.

Still an ugly, poorly designed ship. They'd better have a good reason for going back to that, because it's going to look pretty low-rent, even compared to fan designs.

I don't think that's right.  From what I've read, they've already signed Chris Hemsworth to return as  George Kirk in a fourth film.  Zachary Quinto was on a late night show and said that they love working together so I can imagine they'd keep going.  I'd like to keep Simon Pegg on as a screenwriter - I think his love of Trek showed in Beyond.

Yeah, it was done as an homage to George, but George actually didn't like it.  He said that it's a disservice to the character who has always been, at least in his mind, straight.  Zachary Quinto, who is also gay, was a bit hurt by that, but I don't think George was mad.  He just didn't think a previously-straight character should be switched just for the sake of switching.

New info on Discovery.

http://tvline.com/2016/08/10/star-trek- … lers-cast/

I have no idea what this big event might be. Anyone else? I'm less of a TOS fan, so I'm a little tired of going back to the Kirk and pre-Kirk era. That said, if there is a good story to tell, I will watch it. I think that Fuller is a good person for the job of blending the old Trek style with modern TV.

I hope they don't reimagine the aliens too much.

I am intrigued about the idea of a non-captain as the lead. Don't care about gender, as long as the character is solid.

The gay thing... For me, it's not a matter of the social issue, it is about character. I hate when they force characters to be gay for the sake of having a gay character. That said, sometimes characters just are who they are. That's fine. Honestly though, if you want to outrage Trek fans, throw in a Christian character. Their heads will explode.

The ship is still fugly. Now it reminds me of the Vulcan emblem.

I'm trying to watch the Star Trek 50th anniversary ComicCon panel and it is reminding me of how absurdly simplistic the morals and lessons of Star Trek can be. I really hope that we have more DS9-ish depth to that world in the new series, and not the empty, childish "lessons" that the franchise could often have.

I read that too. And yeah, my expectations are lowered. I think that CBS is probably trying to stick their nose in things, which they always do. It is an old fashioned mentality, especially for streamed shows.

Fuller has said that he has always wanted to run a Star Trek show, so I have a hard time believing that he is simply putting other projects ahead of this one.

I guess we'll see what happens.

The problem is going to be CBS. They don't do good TV.

CBS has been an outright disaster for Star Trek.  They've pissed a lot of fans off after fighting with the web fan series. 

That being said, the budget is VERY high for this series, and as you might imagine, the network is going to be quite hands on.  Also interesting that Toronto has basically become the home of sci-fi TV production.

Star Trek does work better as a series, but I think the problem with the recent movies was Abrams. He shouldn't have been allowed near the franchise, because it became obvious that he just wasn't a Trekkie. Of all the producer/directors they had to choose from, why pick the one who really just wanted to make Star Wars movies?

I think the franchise could have a lot of life left in it, but it needs to be done correctly. And TV makes more sense for it.

They should retire Star Wars.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/38689 … overy-exit

Fuller won't be involved at all.

Train wreck

True. But when you have someone hired to essentially create the vision of a new series, and then the series is delayed, and casting isn't progressing very quickly, and no new news is coming out, then he steps back, and then he says that he's no longer involved at all... it just looks bad. So far, most of what we know about the new series is "Bryan Fuller is connected!" and now that's not true.

So now it's back to other people trying to create a vision for the series, which is basically square one.

We all want a Star Trek series that will be great. The question right now is, are they making the show because they have a great idea, or are they making the show because they've already announced it?

Netflix? Really? That's cool. I was just going to do a free trial of the CBS thing, but I really don't like CBS shows, so I would never pay.

The last report I read stated that Discovery will be on Netflix in 188 countries; the exceptions are the US and Canada.  If we want to watch it, the only option is CBS All Access.

That's a shame. I guess I will have to go with the free trial.

I thought they confirmed that Yeoh was the captain?

I also wouldn't necessarily mind a West Wing (at least, the original concept of the West Wing) approach, where it's more about the staff and the captain is more of a minor character in the background.

I think they've said that the lead will be a female, and more like a Lt. than a Captain. I forget the specifics. She may be a specialist of some sort, dealing with... something.

This post isn't adding a lot to the conversation, is it?

I guess Sasha ain't long for Walking Dead, despite what the news outlets are saying.

And it's not like she has a huge role as is. I occasionally forget she's still on the show.

Sasha seemed to slide into the Andrea role from the comics (Andrea wasn't supposed to die), so one would think Sasha has a lot of life left in her.  Of course, nothing is set in stone on the show.  Carol should have died at the prison if they followed the comics, but she's a fixture of the show.