'Star Trek' Franchise Reboot: Simon Kinberg Eyed for Paramount Movie
So now this just sounds like a Trek prequel, not specifically a Kelvin prequel.
Or they're just throwing the "Kelvin had a specific point of divergence" concept out. @startrek
Submitted 5 months ago by billmason@mastodon.social to startrek@startrek.website
Comments
billmason@mastodon.social 5 months ago
billmason@mastodon.social 5 months ago
"It is said to involve the creation of the Starfleet and humankind’s first contact with alien life."
If that's really what it is, for all I care just establish that Kelvin is an entire alternative universe and not an alternate timeline instead of annoying me by seeing how they frak around with the canon Star Trek: Enterprise already established.
roofuskit@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Oh yes all that valuable canon of, "oh actually they met the Borg earlier and nobody recorded it. And “oh actually they met the ferengi earlier and nobody recorded it.”
StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 5 months ago
The specific point of divergence was shown in Star Trek 2009, otherwise it’s a real reboot and offside the television franchise.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 months ago
I never pass up on an opportunity to share Simon Pegg’s thoughts on the matter - he wrote one of the films, so I think his opinion should carry some weight:
Sure, we experience time as a contiguous series of cascading events but perception and reality aren’t always the same thing. Spock’s incursion from the Prime Universe created a multidimensional reality shift. The rift in space/time created an entirely new reality in all directions, top to bottom, from the Big Bang to the end of everything. As such this reality was, is and always will be subtly different from the Prime Universe. I don’t believe for one second that Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t have loved the idea of an alternate reality (Mirror, Mirror anyone?).
This means, and this is absolutely key, the Kelvin universe can evolve and change in ways that don’t necessarily have to follow the Prime Universe at any point in history, before or after the events of Star Trek ‘09, it can mutate and subvert, it is a playground for the new and the progressive and I know in my heart, that Gene Roddenberry would be proud of us for keeping his ideals alive. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations, this was his dream, that is our dream, it should be everybody’s.
billmason@mastodon.social 5 months ago
@StillPaisleyCat I can't decide how to feel about it. I don't have much interest in a full-blown reboot. Nor am I much interested in seeing how this film might crap all over ENT. I guess we'll see. Or maybe we won't, considering Paramount's track record of late with getting Trek films off the ground. @startrek
SirSamuel@lemmy.world 5 months ago
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 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.
billmason@mastodon.social 5 months ago
@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.
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 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.