"Report: Star Trek 4 Might Be Shelved" Topic

"After years with no updates, in 2018 it seemed like the rebooted Star Trek movie franchise was getting back on track. Star Trek 4 was happening again, and the Trek movieverse's first female director, S.J. Clarkson, was at the helm. Then, things reportedly got bad with regards to casting. Now, there's a chance the whole project might be going down like the Enterprise in Star Trek: Generations. Or in Into Darkness. Or Beyond. Take your pick, actually.

Clarkson was just announced as both the pilot director and an executive producer on HBO's first Game of Thrones spinoff, set thousands of years before the events of the flagship fantasy series. While that's good news for HBO and the prequel, according to Deadline, it might represent a big problem for Star Trek's uncertain future at the box office. See, Deadline notes that the director was snapped up by HBO after recently becoming available…because Star Trek 4 has been shelved:…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

You know, if any release about a movie talks about a female director or producer because
--she brings movies in on time and under budget
--she does good action scenes
--she's really good with dialogue, or
--her plots are well thought out

I promise to pay attention. "First with two X chromosomes!" not so much.

Umm…the story was as much about the (male) actors who wouldn't commit to the film. Like the man who plays (admittedly so badly) the new Kirk.

It's no surprise that the director would jump ship – if the studio can't deliver the cast what should she do, just sit around twiddling her thumbs? Or turn down the chance to head up the GoT spin-off?

Yeah, 20thMaine, I know. I don't blame anyone from bailing from that project. It seems the sensible thing to do. But see which information got the first paragraph?

And, to repeat, no intimation--here, at least--that she brought anything to the project except her DNA. "First female director!" would be exciting if no woman had ever directed a movie before, and people didn't think they could, or if a female director were believed to be inherently BETTER qualified, so it would be the equivalent of saying "directed by Academy Award-winning director Whoever." Is anyone making either argument?

Actually, if you run her credits, she has a nice run as a TV director, some of it in comic book projects, none otherwise in SF. All her credits as producer are as "Executive Producer" of individual episodes of TV programs when she was also the director. They may or may not have meaning. If they ever wanted to make another Star Trek movie, she wasn't offering a track record they can't match--except that she was "the First Female."

Perhaps they should have spent more effort on "script people want to be part of" instead?

There was a Star Trek 3?

Yes, Thresher. My son tells me it was called "Star Trek Beyond." I took his word for it.

My father in law was bored at our place waiting for Christmas dinner to be done, so he fired up Star Trek Beyond on iTunes.

He asked if it was any good.

I told him it was a decent, but ultimately quite forgettable, movie.

The rebooted ST TOS movies have suffered what many such franchises have suffered: franchise fatigue, the challenge of coming up with fresh new stories and diminishing returns with each new installment.

Coupled with its large ensemble cast and difficulties in negotiating actor salaries and other snags, a movie enters what Hollywood calls "Development Hell." Not to mention the guy who played Chekov, Anton Yelchin, perished after he got run over by his own car in a freak incident.

They couldn't get the new one financed after both actors walked. It's DOA.

Good decision – just 3 movies too late.

Star Trek has more or less thrived on tv in large part because it developed the universe and timeline and followed different sets of characters. I think that a movie franchise would do better if it did the same.

Everyone already knows all about the original series characters, and is probably not that interested in seeing those characters in a new rebooted setting. New characters in the same generally familiar universe, however, would probably work.

That would definitely be part of the winning equation, Oberlindes, with the other part being "not a heap of dreck like ST: Discovery"!

I think they shot themselves into the foot when they made Into Darkness and heavily referenced/subverted a movie Average Joe Moviegoer either never saw or doesn't even remember.

Everybody had guessed that Cumberbatch was Khan and then turned him into a Marvel supervillain.

Even Montalban's version had a modicum of depth and character development …

This is what constitutes creativity in Hollywood today :

"Let's switch Spock and Kirk in the iconic death scene !"
"MIND BLOWN !!!"

Of the 3 so far I liked Into Darkness the most. Thought what they did with Khan was in keeping with the idea of superior human – mentally and physically.

Film 3….seemed over influenced by Guardians of the Galaxy. Just didn't seem like it had the spirit of Trek to me.

I don't know if I'd bother with Film 4 – probably, just out of habit, but I'm not excited.

"Let's switch Spock and Kirk in the iconic death scene !"

That bit was rubbish – in Wrath of Khan it carried dramatic gravitas due to the (nearly) life-long association of Kirk & Spock, in the reboot they hardly know each other really.