|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 6, 2023 23:15:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Jan 7, 2023 4:28:15 GMT
If they do this, I would love to see her return. She was one of my favorite things about ST Beyond, and that's a long list...
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Jan 7, 2023 5:13:53 GMT
If they do this, I would love to see her return. She was one of my favorite things about ST Beyond, and that's a long list... The flip side of sorts to your comment is that I didn't like STB, I don't have a long list of favorite things from that movie, BUT she was definitely a highlight. Enough for me to care for her return? I don't think so but I'm not against it either. Though I suppose her request is moot overall since the Kelvinverse is kaput.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 7, 2023 5:33:42 GMT
I don't know that it's officially kaput, but it's honestly not looking good. If there's no real movement this year, I'll call it done because it at least still feels like Para wants to do it.
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Jan 7, 2023 19:10:25 GMT
I don't know that it's officially kaput, but it's honestly not looking good. If there's no real movement this year, I'll call it done because it at least still feels like Para wants to do it. You're right. All we have is that Paramount removed ST4 from their production line or whatever the equivalent lingo is to that in Hollyspeak. But to me it's practically the same. Really, there is no sense of wanting a continuation of the Kelvinverse. Maybe just a few folks. These movies weren't hits overall. The first one was because people were curious. I'm also thinking they're devoting a lot of energy on tv. That doesn't mean they can't do movies but it there doesn't make much sense in continuing Kelvinverse. If anything it would be something new or one of the new shows.
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 7, 2023 20:28:19 GMT
Investment in a new Kelvinverse movie is costly because all of those cast members are big stars now. Getting them all together under one roof again will be pricey, so the movie is already out of a low budget bracket - unless those stars take a cut in their salaries and take a percentage of the gross profits instead. So many things up in the air in Hollywood these days, that's not impossible.
But, right out of the gate, ST-K IV needs to be seen to be a major tentpole release. Given that the field is relatively clear at the moment (no new Star Wars film on the horizon and the MCU appears to be flattening out) maybe the time is right.
In other words, I wouldn't write it off completely. I'd just hope it isn't any of the ideas for scripts that have been floated in the recent past, especially not that Jim Kirk meets George Kirk one.
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Jan 7, 2023 20:33:32 GMT
I don't know that it's officially kaput, but it's honestly not looking good. If there's no real movement this year, I'll call it done because it at least still feels like Para wants to do it. It'll also become increasingly expensive, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 7, 2023 22:54:02 GMT
I don't know that it's officially kaput, but it's honestly not looking good. If there's no real movement this year, I'll call it done because it at least still feels like Para wants to do it. You're right. All we have is that Paramount removed ST4 from their production line or whatever the equivalent lingo is to that in Hollyspeak. But to me it's practically the same. Really, there is no sense of wanting a continuation of the Kelvinverse. Maybe just a few folks. These movies weren't hits overall. The first one was because people were curious. I'm also thinking they're devoting a lot of energy on tv. That doesn't mean they can't do movies but it there doesn't make much sense in continuing Kelvinverse. If anything it would be something new or one of the new shows. To be fair, even if they don't go forward, Beyond had a genuine sense of finality to it. One could argue that Chekov moved on, Jayla came in, and the film wraps with the ship rebuilt and moving on. It's bittersweet and effective. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to call the MCU flattening out simply because, to be honest, no one seemed to be able to make sense of Phase 4. You have movies that don't fit in any part of it (Black Widow) Movies that just don't quite work for mechanical reasons (The Eternals) and almost nothing in theatrical Phase 4 pointing to anything beyond it, it's like this island of content unto itself. It feels completely unnecessary so far. Quantumania is the first part of something that matters. Maybe audiences get that sense, too. We'll see. Between the films finally having some sort of focus, the final GotG (a fan favorite) and another Marvels film all this year, PLUS a calendar that looks like a return of steady content for exhibitors, we'll have a way better sense whether or not the MCU has plateaued.
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 8, 2023 14:52:01 GMT
You're right. All we have is that Paramount removed ST4 from their production line or whatever the equivalent lingo is to that in Hollyspeak. But to me it's practically the same. Really, there is no sense of wanting a continuation of the Kelvinverse. Maybe just a few folks. These movies weren't hits overall. The first one was because people were curious. I'm also thinking they're devoting a lot of energy on tv. That doesn't mean they can't do movies but it there doesn't make much sense in continuing Kelvinverse. If anything it would be something new or one of the new shows. To be fair, even if they don't go forward, Beyond had a genuine sense of finality to it. One could argue that Chekov moved on, Jayla came in, and the film wraps with the ship rebuilt and moving on. It's bittersweet and effective. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to call the MCU flattening out simply because, to be honest, no one seemed to be able to make sense of Phase 4. You have movies that don't fit in any part of it (Black Widow) Movies that just don't quite work for mechanical reasons (The Eternals) and almost nothing in theatrical Phase 4 pointing to anything beyond it, it's like this island of content unto itself. It feels completely unnecessary so far. Quantumania is the first part of something that matters. Maybe audiences get that sense, too. We'll see. Between the films finally having some sort of focus, the final GotG (a fan favorite) and another Marvels film all this year, PLUS a calendar that looks like a return of steady content for exhibitors, we'll have a way better sense whether or not the MCU has plateaued. I feel like the MCU is beginning to buckle under the same logistical weights as its comics equivalent does. That is, the stakes get vaster and vaster and the audiences’ ability to comprehend these shrinks. (Literally so, in the case of Quantum Ant People 3). I dunno, as long as it looks cool and the spectacle is there I guess audiences will attend. Quantumania does look cool. I was actually pleasantly surprised by Wakanda Forever, which I eventually took the bairn to see and found to be a better film than BP1, perhaps because it had to really do some narrative work to overcome a missing star. And yeah, GotG 3 will definitely bring ‘em in. It all feels sort of jaded though, as though there are no new tricks, just ever-expanding crossovers. I think there will be a new Trek film at some point, but Paramount may choose a cheaper option than Kelvin 4. And I agree, if Beyond is the final shout for that crew, it’s a high point to go out on - for me, easily the best of those three films.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 8, 2023 18:52:25 GMT
To be fair, even if they don't go forward, Beyond had a genuine sense of finality to it. One could argue that Chekov moved on, Jayla came in, and the film wraps with the ship rebuilt and moving on. It's bittersweet and effective. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to call the MCU flattening out simply because, to be honest, no one seemed to be able to make sense of Phase 4. You have movies that don't fit in any part of it (Black Widow) Movies that just don't quite work for mechanical reasons (The Eternals) and almost nothing in theatrical Phase 4 pointing to anything beyond it, it's like this island of content unto itself. It feels completely unnecessary so far. Quantumania is the first part of something that matters. Maybe audiences get that sense, too. We'll see. Between the films finally having some sort of focus, the final GotG (a fan favorite) and another Marvels film all this year, PLUS a calendar that looks like a return of steady content for exhibitors, we'll have a way better sense whether or not the MCU has plateaued. I feel like the MCU is beginning to buckle under the same logistical weights as its comics equivalent does. That is, the stakes get vaster and vaster and the audiences’ ability to comprehend these shrinks. (Literally so, in the case of Quantum Ant People 3). I dunno, as long as it looks cool and the spectacle is there I guess audiences will attend. Quantumania does look cool. I was actually pleasantly surprised by Wakanda Forever, which I eventually took the bairn to see and found to be a better film than BP1, perhaps because it had to really do some narrative work to overcome a missing star. And yeah, GotG 3 will definitely bring ‘em in. It all feels sort of jaded though, as though there are no new tricks, just ever-expanding crossovers. I think there will be a new Trek film at some point, but Paramount may choose a cheaper option than Kelvin 4. And I agree, if Beyond is the final shout for that crew, it’s a high point to go out on - for me, easily the best of those three films. You are completely right that the entire MCU is feeling more like a load-bearing structure than a sort of effervescent bit of movie fun that will sort of tie together at the end. Comprehension is becoming a problem too because you have these series that are sort of lackluster Wandavision turned out all right, but I almost bailed after those first two episodes. Then you have Loki, which was great in and of itself, but we're really starting to have a condition where there are holes in the theatrical arc of the MCU because they are leaving out backstory to be filled in by the TV arm. So, to fully grasp what's happening you have to watch all of it. That's becoming an ever more daunting task. And, it's a tightrope to walk because, while you're right that the MCU needs to dare to try different things, when they do, they run a risk. Eternals was a risk in trying a director not known for this kind of film. The problem is that it didn't work. That makes one gun shy about trying that again. The MCU is in a pretty fragile place at the moment, to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 9, 2023 19:34:05 GMT
You are completely right that the entire MCU is feeling more like a load-bearing structure than a sort of effervescent bit of movie fun that will sort of tie together at the end. Comprehension is becoming a problem too because you have these series that are sort of lackluster Wandavision turned out all right, but I almost bailed after those first two episodes. Then you have Loki, which was great in and of itself, but we're really starting to have a condition where there are holes in the theatrical arc of the MCU because they are leaving out backstory to be filled in by the TV arm. So, to fully grasp what's happening you have to watch all of it. That's becoming an ever more daunting task. And, it's a tightrope to walk because, while you're right that the MCU needs to dare to try different things, when they do, they run a risk. Eternals was a risk in trying a director not known for this kind of film. The problem is that it didn't work. That makes one gun shy about trying that again. The MCU is in a pretty fragile place at the moment, to be sure. I enjoyed Moon Knight - it was like Raiders of the Lost Ark on acid. I also liked it because I got to watch with the bairn who, now she's 18, is getting increasingly fickle in her watching habits, and we both really liked this one. Despite liking the first couple of episodes, I didn't make it through Ms Marvel though - and she couldn't be bothered to watch, even though it's set in our neighborhood! (Well, down the road in Jersey City. We're in a less salubrious area. Also, recognisably not filmed around here either.) And I only got through She-Hulk because a mate of mine who is involved in the mighty whirl of Marvel in a professional way exhorted me to. Felt really disappointed with that one, even with the great Tatiana Maslany at the center of it. So yeah, I'm gonna be very careful about the next MCU show I commit to. I'll definitely watch Loki S2 as I enjoyed S1, but beyond that, I dunno. I think the faithful will keep the MCU going for a while yet, but more casual filmgoers may begin to drop away. In a sense, the MCU's strength - its interconnectedness - has also become its weakness.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 9, 2023 21:26:14 GMT
You are completely right that the entire MCU is feeling more like a load-bearing structure than a sort of effervescent bit of movie fun that will sort of tie together at the end. Comprehension is becoming a problem too because you have these series that are sort of lackluster Wandavision turned out all right, but I almost bailed after those first two episodes. Then you have Loki, which was great in and of itself, but we're really starting to have a condition where there are holes in the theatrical arc of the MCU because they are leaving out backstory to be filled in by the TV arm. So, to fully grasp what's happening you have to watch all of it. That's becoming an ever more daunting task. And, it's a tightrope to walk because, while you're right that the MCU needs to dare to try different things, when they do, they run a risk. Eternals was a risk in trying a director not known for this kind of film. The problem is that it didn't work. That makes one gun shy about trying that again. The MCU is in a pretty fragile place at the moment, to be sure. I enjoyed Moon Knight - it was like Raiders of the Lost Ark on acid. I also liked it because I got to watch with the bairn who, now she's 18, is getting increasingly fickle in her watching habits, and we both really liked this one. Despite liking the first couple of episodes, I didn't make it through Ms Marvel though - and she couldn't be bothered to watch, even though it's set in our neighborhood! (Well, down the road in Jersey City. We're in a less salubrious area. Also, recognisably not filmed around here either.) And I only got through She-Hulk because a mate of mine who is involved in the mighty whirl of Marvel in a professional way exhorted me to. Felt really disappointed with that one, even with the great Tatiana Maslany at the center of it. So yeah, I'm gonna be very careful about the next MCU show I commit to. I'll definitely watch Loki S2 as I enjoyed S1, but beyond that, I dunno. I think the faithful will keep the MCU going for a while yet, but more casual filmgoers may begin to drop away. In a sense, the MCU's strength - its interconnectedness - has also become its weakness. It took me a while to get into Moon Knight, but I did end up really liking it. That was one I had to make a point watching in bigger pieces (2 eps at a time) just because it was easier to track everything. TBH, as good as Maslany is in everything, I still haven't watched She-Hulk and probably won't. Judging by the previews I'm not sure the humor is enough to hold me, and the Duchess would bail at its nonsense liberal interpretation of court procedure. Haven't watched Ms. Marvel at all. There's already kind of too much around. Loki S2 is on my own must list. Beyond that, I just don't know. I've never been all that enthusiastic about Ant-Man either, but this is the film's first attempt at not being what the director calls "Marvel's palate cleanser," and I'm honestly curious as to how that goes.
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 10, 2023 0:13:54 GMT
It took me a while to get into Moon Knight, but I did end up really liking it. That was one I had to make a point watching in bigger pieces (2 eps at a time) just because it was easier to track everything. TBH, as good as Maslany is in everything, I still haven't watched She-Hulk and probably won't. Judging by the previews I'm not sure the humor is enough to hold me, and the Duchess would bail at its nonsense liberal interpretation of court procedure. Haha! She-Hulk ain't worth it. It just wasn't worth the time. The bairn wants to see Ant Family 3, so I guess we will. Look forward to discussing with you.
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Jan 11, 2023 4:35:23 GMT
It took me a while to get into Moon Knight, but I did end up really liking it. That was one I had to make a point watching in bigger pieces (2 eps at a time) just because it was easier to track everything. TBH, as good as Maslany is in everything, I still haven't watched She-Hulk and probably won't. Judging by the previews I'm not sure the humor is enough to hold me, and the Duchess would bail at its nonsense liberal interpretation of court procedure. Haha! She-Hulk ain't worth it. It just wasn't worth the time. I liked the pilot (sort of), but it's so featherweight, that I just can't invest in any of it. I like my Hulk stories a bit more dark and angsty, not as fluffy comedy. Moments of character-driven comedy are fine, but the whole thing just feels utterly inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Jan 11, 2023 6:01:23 GMT
Haha! She-Hulk ain't worth it. It just wasn't worth the time. I liked the pilot (sort of), but it's so featherweight, that I just can't invest in any of it. I like my Hulk stories a bit more dark and angsty, not as fluffy comedy. Moments of character-driven comedy are fine, but the whole thing just feels utterly inconsequential. She-Hulk is definitely inconsequential and like it because of that. The character also tells you that from the getgo so I was properly warned. I might be one of the few people who actually liked that series because it didn't take itself seriously. "Earth" wasn't in trouble. Nothing horrific to the universe was gonna happen and that was cool by me. Moon Knight started strong but kinda lost me. I don't know about anyone else but you want to like Ms. Marvel.....but then it gets more into a cultural background, that might be interesting to some but surely disconnects the rest. There was an ep that felt more like Lonely Planet: Pakistan. Like a tourism commercial. I think one of the mistakes these series makes is that it stretches the story too long. Two to three less eps would have helped. And that applies to Star Wars on Disney+ as well. Boy....we kinda went off topic fast!!! LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Jan 11, 2023 13:50:14 GMT
I liked the pilot (sort of), but it's so featherweight, that I just can't invest in any of it. I like my Hulk stories a bit more dark and angsty, not as fluffy comedy. Moments of character-driven comedy are fine, but the whole thing just feels utterly inconsequential. She-Hulk is definitely inconsequential and like it because of that. The character also tells you that from the getgo so I was properly warned. I might be one of the few people who actually liked that series because it didn't take itself seriously. "Earth" wasn't in trouble. Nothing horrific to the universe was gonna happen and that was cool by me. Moon Knight started strong but kinda lost me. I don't know about anyone else but you want to like Ms. Marvel.....but then it gets more into a cultural background, that might be interesting to some but surely disconnects the rest. There was an ep that felt more like Lonely Planet: Pakistan. Like a tourism commercial. I think one of the mistakes these series makes is that it stretches the story too long. Two to three less eps would have helped. And that applies to Star Wars on Disney+ as well. Boy....we kinda went off topic fast!!! LOL!!! Just like old times...
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 11, 2023 16:26:10 GMT
Sofia Boutella... I'm sorry. I tried. This was supposed to be about you!
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Jan 11, 2023 17:46:02 GMT
I don't think there is really an interest in Star Trek films. There is just nothing to put in film that would draw an audience...now after the Strange New World show ends, maybe they can put that cast to film and do a very epic story with them, but I have doubts about the current talent writing for any of NuTrek.
I for one think Star Trek should go back to the Bennett era budgets where most of the substance has to be the writing. As Nick Meyer says it, art thrives on restrictions. Just make sure who ever produces it understands those restrictions. Its really hard to imagine a Star Trek movie being any good in the style of present day ADHD cinematics.
If anything they need to create a new set of characters just for the movie. Heck give us the "Missing Era". I'm sure they can do an Enteprise-B movie (WITHOUT FREAKIN REDESIGNING THE DANG SHIP TO LOOK LIKE A ROADSTER OR AN EDSEL). They can go the political drama route of Star Trek VI. Especially with the Romulans freaking out about the Khitomer accords.
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Jan 11, 2023 18:17:40 GMT
I don't think there is really an interest in Star Trek films. There is just nothing to put in film that would draw an audience...now after the Strange New World show ends, maybe they can put that cast to film and do a very epic story with them, but I have doubts about the current talent writing for any of NuTrek. I for one think Star Trek should go back to the Bennett era budgets where most of the substance has to be the writing. As Nick Meyer says it, art thrives on restrictions. Just make sure who ever produces it understands those restrictions. Its really hard to imagine a Star Trek movie being any good in the style of present day ADHD cinematics. If anything they need to create a new set of characters just for the movie. Heck give us the "Missing Era". I'm sure they can do an Enteprise-B movie (WITHOUT FREAKIN REDESIGNING THE DANG SHIP TO LOOK LIKE A ROADSTER OR AN EDSEL). They can go the political drama route of Star Trek VI. Especially with the Romulans freaking out about the Khitomer accords. Marrying your two points about current talent writing in NuTrek plus budget restrictions I feel we would get more soap opera dramatics. That would be the easiest that this writing staff understands. Previous Trek would have relied on something scientific but not NuTrek. And overall I agree: there really isn't an interest in Star Trek films at this moment.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 11, 2023 21:26:06 GMT
I have to agree. There's so much Trek on and Trek coming that there's no need to put it in theaters to try to remind people that Star trek exists or something.
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Jan 11, 2023 23:16:06 GMT
The thing about Star Trek films were, people wanted more Star Trek. So I, II, III, and IV was the only fix people were getting. When TNG came out, the people (Few) that went to see V and the people who went to see VI went to see the OG cast. Even when TNG was popular, people still liked to watch not Kirk and Spock and Co., but Shatner and Nimoy and Co. And lets face it. A lot of us was just there to lust after the Uss Enterprise Refit/A. After TNG Ended, people went to see GENERATIONS to see KIRK meets PICARD. People went to see FIRST CONTACT to see Worf tell Picard "IF YOU WERE ANY OTHER MAN I WOULD KILL YOU WHERE YOU STAND"...or maybe it was those cybernetic zombies..ummm..oh yeah..THE BORG!!! Insurrection lost momentum (I love this movie, but I'm there to just see additional TNG cast adventures, and sexy new ENTEPRISE E, and same with Nemesis), and I think there was a lack of a staple to hold audiences. My staple was the TNG cast, and the ENTERPRISE E. That's a very Niche staple.
Basically people saw Star Trek 2009 out of desperation for more trek or the average movie goer was there to drool over Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana. That wore off after the first movie. Into Darkness was such a hot mess, I think that scared everyone off from BEYOND. People were used to the bad writing and lens flare gimmicks of the previous 2 to even give BEYOND a chance. The general audience probably didn't even notice it had different writers or that it was directed by Justin Lin. This is also reflective of modern problems with making movies today. Star Treks I- X were made by 1 company, Paramount. Movies today have like 3 or 4 or even 5 production companies with investors footing budgets. Its a lot of hurdles and red tape these days to get a movie made.
|
|
|
Post by Sehlat Vie on Jan 12, 2023 1:24:55 GMT
I have to agree. There's so much Trek on and Trek coming that there's no need to put it in theaters to try to remind people that Star trek exists or something. Like the Star Wars franchise as well. If you told me ten years ago that Star Wars TV shows would be more successful than the movies, I truly wouldn't have believed it.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 12, 2023 2:11:59 GMT
I have to agree. There's so much Trek on and Trek coming that there's no need to put it in theaters to try to remind people that Star trek exists or something. Like the Star Wars franchise as well. If you told me ten years ago that Star Wars TV shows would be more successful than the movies, I truly wouldn't have believed it. If you had told me how much different TV would be to begin with....
|
|
|
Post by nombrecomun on Jan 12, 2023 6:59:27 GMT
Basically people saw Star Trek 2009 out of desperation for more trek or the average movie goer was there to drool over Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana. That wore off after the first movie. I think casual movie goers, not necessarily Trek fans, were curious to see how a new cast were going to interpret these iconic roles. And as you said, the curiosity wore off after the first movie.
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 12, 2023 15:05:46 GMT
We've all said, on various occasions, that Trek works better on TV than it does at the movie theatre. Broadly, I think that was always true. As Sherlock observed, back in the 80s the movies were a fan's only fix until TNG came on air. After which, it became more about nostalgia than the "event" of a Trek film.
MCU movies, even Star Wars movies (despite the fact that Disney messed that up) are events, holiday tentpole flicks. Trek is synonymous with intelligent TV.
I don't think this will stop Paramount trying though.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 12, 2023 17:47:07 GMT
We've all said, on various occasions, that Trek works better on TV than it does at the movie theatre. Broadly, I think that was always true. As Sherlock observed, back in the 80s the movies were a fan's only fix until TNG came on air. After which, it became more about nostalgia than the "event" of a Trek film. MCU movies, even Star Wars movies (despite the fact that Disney messed that up) are events, holiday tentpole flicks. Trek is synonymous with intelligent TV. I don't think this will stop Paramount trying though. Paramount already now has, through the TV arm, a massive investment in sets and VR. That would let them put out a passable film for even less up front. If they feel the need for a theatrical presence, and they seem to, take the SNW approach (comparatively unknown actors. New crew. new situation. If you want something accessible, try a Dominion War movie or Section 31 espionage flick. See if something works. What Paramount FINALLY needs to do with the films is work within the constraints that decades of trying has taught it to expect: modest returns from a franchise they cannot tentpole in cinemas. The problem is that they want it to be something that it's never going to be.
|
|
|
Post by ashleytinger on Jan 24, 2023 4:03:23 GMT
I would like a Kelvin Trek IV if only to give them another shot at a Trek film. I mostly enjoyed the Kelvin Trek films and the thought of a Pine-Hemsworth crossover really was intriguing. Either way, I'd lover Sofia to come back She played a great character.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 24, 2023 4:31:31 GMT
I would like a Kelvin Trek IV if only to give them another shot at a Trek film. I mostly enjoyed the Kelvin Trek films and the thought of a Pine-Hemsworth crossover really was intriguing. Either way, I'd lover Sofia to come back She played a great character. I would surely like to see more Jayla, but I was never too keen on that crossover idea because a significant part of Beyond was Kirk putting all his daddy issues to bed.
|
|
|
Post by RobinBland on Jan 24, 2023 23:57:31 GMT
I would like a Kelvin Trek IV if only to give them another shot at a Trek film. I mostly enjoyed the Kelvin Trek films and the thought of a Pine-Hemsworth crossover really was intriguing. Either way, I'd lover Sofia to come back She played a great character. I would surely like to see more Jayla, but I was never too keen on that crossover idea because a significant part of Beyond was Kirk putting all his daddy issues to bed. I really liked Pine's Kirk in Beyond, precisely because of that. The character had come of age, and Pine played him to perfection. He captured something that Shatner at his best gave Kirk and took it forward a step or two. He gave Kirk that almost insouciant confidence and enough vulnerability that you could see him relying on his friends and colleagues, but always taking the final decision upon himself. There's those great scenes with Admiral Paris that bookend the film, and he's so good in each of these. I really felt that this was the Kelvin crew in "their" equivalent of TOS season 3 - everything gelled. Boutella's Jaylah was a big part of that. I'd be disappointed if Kelvin IV came about and she wasn't present. Even if only in a cameo.
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus59650 on Jan 25, 2023 0:27:33 GMT
I would surely like to see more Jayla, but I was never too keen on that crossover idea because a significant part of Beyond was Kirk putting all his daddy issues to bed. I really liked Pine's Kirk in Beyond, precisely because of that. The character had come of age, and Pine played him to perfection. He captured something that Shatner at his best gave Kirk and took it forward a step or two. He gave Kirk that almost insouciant confidence and enough vulnerability that you could see him relying on his friends and colleagues, but always taking the final decision upon himself. There's those great scenes with Admiral Paris that bookend the film, and he's so good in each of these. I really felt that this was the Kelvin crew in "their" equivalent of TOS season 3 - everything gelled. Boutella's Jaylah was a big part of that. I'd be disappointed if Kelvin IV came about and she wasn't present. Even if only in a cameo. His Kirk never came across as an imitation or caricature. It was like he watched Shatner and studied the performance and asked, "What bits of this work with what I'd like to do so it doesn't just look like I'm trying to ape Shatner?" He found them and it's seamless and there are these little moments in each film that I can look at and see the, in this new guy, the Kirk I remember as a kid. Like, at the end of Trek '09, at the end, when Kirk steps onto the bridge after having been given the chair, he exits the turbolift, goes down those two little steps and "Bones!" He shifts his expression just so and hits that tone of voice in the sweet spot and it looks, sounds, and feels like the casual, lighthearted stride home that Shatner would do in the denouement of any number of episodes. Pine, overall, did a fantastic job.
|
|