Noah Hawley Gives An Update On His Star Trek Movie – “I Have My Own Take On The Franchise”

After the Hollywood trades let it be known that Paramount was interested in self-professed lifelong Trek fan Noah Hawley doing a Star Trek movie back in November, we weren’t sure how long it would be before we heard more. Thankfully, the wait wasn’t long: Hawley was doing press for Fargo season four this week and his Star Trek project came up.

Timeframe for Hawley’s Star Trek movie

Hawley told Deadline that once he’s completely finished on Fargo season 4 (the season is currently in production, set to premiere in April), he will be jumping into his Star Trek movie at Paramount “as soon as possible.”

So it looks like work may begin on the screenplay later this spring or early summer.

It’s not really Star Trek 4

Speaking with The Hollywood Reporter Hawley said: “To call it Star Trek IV [the placeholder the trades have been using] is kind of a misnomer. I have my own take on the franchise as a lifelong fan.”

Asked if the film would involve a new cast, he responded, “Yeah, I think so. Yeah. It’s early days. I don’t know. But new characters often involve new cast.”

He told Deadline, “I have my own story and want to make sure as I did with Fargo and Legion that I’m respectful to the underlying material. That I’m not unintentionally changing things that people love or feel passionate about. So, it’s important to do that research as I go.”

Hawley gave an example to THR of the kind of Trek spirit he wants to see in the movies again:

It’s William Shatner putting on his reading glasses and lowering Khan’s shields, which cost like $9.50. There’s no big action sequence. He’s just more clever, there’s something really uplifting about that feeling. I went to Paramount and just had my own ideas for what I wanted to do with it. So that’s the direction that I’m going in. It’s still very early days, so I can’t really be more specific. But it’s going to be different.

Kirk gets “caught with his britches down”

No pressure to sync with TV side

A question on a lot of fans’ minds since the CBS/Viacom merger is now official is whether there’s going to be a unified Star Trek production for both films and TV.

Hawley is quoted as saying: “There isn’t a mandate from Paramount to connect it. And on some levels, there’s a bit of the wall, the TV version and the film version.” Hawley did, however, say that he is in contact with Alex Kurtzman.

Keep in mind that it’s very early on in the days of the merger and Paramount and CBS will still be separate sub-companies under the CBSViacom umbrella, so it may never fully be like the ’90s when there was only one corporate entity (Paramount) making Trek.


Keep up with all the news on upcoming Star Trek films at TrekMovie.com.

199
Leave a Reply

49 Comment threads
150 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
77 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify me of
HubcapDave

I think trying to conflate “new cast” with “a new cast” is a bit of a deception.

Yes. He didn’t say *entirely* new cast. The way it’s written seems more like the supporting cast will be new. It could be Pine and Co but everyone *else* is different.

I hope so anyway. The Kelvin Cast are only TMP era age now so they have a LOT more in them.

They’re all mostly 40. John Cho and Karl Urban are a bit older…

But they’re not done yet. The Kelvin Universe is barely 10years old.

Mister Vulcan

That’s kind of I read it. He doesn’t use reboot or reimagining in the interview. He may use this Kelvin cast, at least some of them. It may not be an Enterprise crew centered movie but Quinto and Pine will feature in it. Who knows? All I know is that if it’s another reboot set in the TOS timeline or a prequel then I’m not that interested.

Corinthian7

I think maybe you’re clutching at straws here. He doesn’t just speak about a new cast for new characters but he also said that calling it Star Trek 4 was a misnomer. I wouldn’t worry though, I’m sure there will be more movies with the Kelvin cast. It’s just difficult building momentum for cinematic Trek outings with just one movie every 3 or 4 years so it makes sense to develop projects outside of that series.

thebiggfrogg

It was a misprint. He said ‘new cats”. He is thinking of a mashup between Star Trek and Cats. The crossover event we have all been waiting for it. Bonus: It could get Patrick Stewart and Ian MacKellan together on the screen. And Shatner would make one hell of a “fat cat”.

ADAM KOFF

Less lense flairs and more story!!!!

Because JJ *invented* lens flare…. I’ve frankly seen other movies which weren’t by Bad Robot that were way worse.

edwet

More exploration and science.. Less BIG BAD SHIPS

A34

Sounds like a real blockbuster. :/

It’s “lens flare,” fella.

HubcapDave

MOAR LENZ FLAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PEWDIEPICARD

Agreed! JJ may not have invented them but boy did he kill them…like the does most everything he touches.

Allister in Bonnie (wet) Scotland!

Sorry but for me… Star Trek works so much better on TV (But I do love enjoy the movies) :-)

Pah Wraith Bob

I think Star Trek needs to stay on television at this point. It was meant for television. I appreciate some of the old films and love the new films but perhaps the era of the Trek Film is over. Paramounts endeavor to turn Star Trek into Star Wars has been mixed at best. I Love the Kelvin Timeline and I was excited about its potential but it has had its issues. A lot of plot holes and missed opportunities. Bad Robot dropped the ball after the first film. They give these film franchises over to these Directors who don’t have a clue about building a great story. Khan is a great character but it was a mistake to use him in the follow-up film. Cumberbatch was amazing and I loved the movie but I don’t think Khan was the answer. JJ jumping ship to Star Wars did not help either. I am not sure they had a real plan for the Kelvin timeline. As much as I love Leonard Nimoy, they used him to try to please the old fanbase. Fan service coupled with Twitter critics is killing creativity. Hawley is feeling himself right now. Having criticially accailmed shows gives you a certain amount of Hubris. He needs to ask the folks who did the latest Terminator how that whole ‘tell my own story’ thing worked out for them. How does Paramount make this movie without Chris Pine in it? Does a new cast mean a new timeline? It is going to be hard to sell this movie without the Kelvin crew. I am skeptical and I honestly believe it has the potential to fail. In the age of Marvel and Netflix, what kind of movie are you going to make that I can’t see on CBS Access a couple of times a year. I think this movie will get shelved and never made to be honest.

Gary 8.5

Nah. I want BOTH!

LOFC_Ed

I agree. This is a big time for ‘Trek but TV should come first, see how it all goes and then see if a movie(s) will be worth doing.

lynn

I totally agree that bring in a new timeline or a new cast at this point in time will spell box office failure before the first scene is filmed. I will not bother to go and see it. I don’t understand why everyone refers to this cast as the kelvin cast. In truth this cast could play their characters in any number of different timelines. Also, Mr Hawley refers to one of his most favorite scenes being in The Wrath Of Khan. That movie was one of the more violent of the original movies. I read in some article that he wants to take Star Trek in a new direction and that Star trek is about exploration and man’s evolution to a better civilization. If that is the case, then stick to the original timeline and its 5 year space exploration because if the film is set in the future, shouldn’t all of the exploration and evolution occurred? Sounds like it will be a very boring movie to me.

steve- o

Fast forward to 4 months from now when he drops from production and movie is placed back on a hiatus. When it comes to the next movie i’ve thrown my hands up in defeat.

Pah Wraith Bob

I agree wtih you. This thing is never getting made.Ever. If it does it will collapse under the weight of his arrogance. Paramount needs to partner with Alex Kurtzman and the television version to cultivate and develop the Kelvin Timeline. Letting that cast go would be a huge mistake. Hawley has a lot of nerve. I blame Bad Robot for a lot of this.

Gary 8.5

The weight of his arrogance? He has an idea, he is not the first.You think that he didn’t approach Paramount? I love Discovery and, I am looking forward to Picard but, CBSAA is not the only game in town

dennycranium

You know, maybe make a movie and send it straight to a streaming service like The Irishman.

PaulB

I won’t believe a 4th movie is really happening until I’m in the theater watching it.

lynn

If Mr. Hawley decides new cast or a reboot, it will not be me sitting in a theater watching it. What makes him think that his “take” on Star Trek is going to be better than anyone else. Keep the cast at least everyone knows if you are planning a new direction. I just don’t think a new cast along with a new concept will result in success. All previous main characters have been introduced through TV(not CBC/allaccess)

Paramount isn’t in a hurry at this point.

TG47

Yes, but ViacomCBS senior executives may be. They’re out telling investors that they have two new Trek movies in the works.

At least one needs to actually happen, and at this point Hawley’s project seems most likely.

By the way, Kurtzman reportedly confirmed at TCA that, while his group weren’t looking to make movies based on their series, Hawley and he had already exchanged emails.

So, at least they are communicating.

May be is the operative turn of the phrase. Paramount doesn’t have two movies in the works, just a couple of proposals. Well, now three. It could take years before Paramount finds something they like enough to put in front of investors.

ML31

Fascinating. He seems to think this is still a thing. And what he is saying interests me. I’m also pleased to hear there is a 4th season of Fargo to be honest. I’ve been wondering if that was ever going to happen!

I’m a bit nervous about new characters (which is how I read his comments) but I like the idea behind it. Hope it works out.

Gary 8.5

The trailer for Seaon 4 is on line now. It’s pretty cool.

JED

Whether you like the Kelvin universe or not most people agree the cast is largely very likeable. If you recast, then you are taking a big risk on how the replacements will be received, if you invent new characters you start to lose essential elements of the IP. You can’t just stick a bunch of actors on a ship and hope it is Star Trek, Enterprise and Discovery make this abundantly clear! Stick with Pine etc and adjust the script accordingly.

bryan

Without the Kelvin cast I fear that this will flail. Oh well…probably will remain in development hell if ever seeing the light of day.

Mike Thompson

Very worried about this, if no Kelvin crew, would prefer a Captain Pike film.

TG47

It sounds as though we’re more likely to see a Pike streaming series.

albatrosity

I don’t think the general public is super attached to these actors in these roles. It’s been four years since they’ve seen them on screen and at least six will have passed before this movie, whatever it ends up being, is released. As great as the cast of the Kelvin crew is, I don’t think they’re essential to success. But what would be essential is a large return on investment, which is far more likely without the cast eating up a huge chunk of the movie’s budget.

lynn

Paramount in my opinion created the monster. Contracting deals with the actors prior to the release of Beyond just does not seem like a smart business move. Supposedly it was to nail down their participation in the fourth movie but in the end still lost the movie because the actors felt Paramount should honor original deals. Also I must be missing something in albatrosity’s comment. Which six actors is he referring to “will have passed”. Confused and not understanding.

TechNoir

Uh, you CAN stick a bunch of actors on a ship or station and call it Star Trek. TNG and DS9 made that abundantly clear. It’s all in the writing.

JED

On the small screen I would agree with you TechNoir but to get interest from the general public, which you need for a Theatrical release you probably need Kirk, Spock and McCòy. DS9 never made it to the big screen and TNG didn’t find much success there with the exception of First Contact.

kmart

You make it for a price and you deliver a good solid FIREFLY style adventure and let the audience discover and fall in love with your new characters and actors. (and you hope it doesn’t tank like SERENITY did, for whatever stupid reason folks didn’t go see that solid flick.)

Sort of like original STAR WARS, but less stupid, please.

TG47

kmart, I recognize that their are a lot of Firefly/Serenity fans here, but the film just really wasn’t accessible or good for non-fans.

We hadn’t been able to see the show, so my spouse and I saw the movie Serenity in first run with no context. We’re both solid sci-fi fans so we gave it a chance while it was in theatres.

And it was so completely unmemorable that I recently pushed myself to watch Serenity on Amazon Prime thinking I’d never seen it.

Afterwards, I discussed it with my spouse, who had the ‘don’t you remember’ reaction, but also recalled that it didn’t make it as cinematic level for those who didn’t follow the series. My view on reseeing it was that there was a lot of fan service and important closure points that were completely unearned within the limited frame of the film.

Now, I can attribute my memory blank to the reality of having young kids taking over our lives around then, but it also makes me think about how even the better Trek movies don’t do enough to engage newcomers to the franchise.

kmart

tg47, that’s interesting, because SERENITY turned every one of my wife’s co-workers (none of whom liked scifi) into a FIREFLY fan after the fact. I think SERENITY is the best film from tv show ever done, because it does seem to work for folks who come fresh to it, plus it is fully engaging on an emotional level in a way no trek movie has ever managed for me. In fact, I’d say GALAXY QUEST engages me emotionally more consistently than any Trek film.

The fact that it was about characters having decisions to make, and the action such as it was arose out of that is part of what makes it work so well for me, and why I am so disappointed with other stuff.

TG47

We can agree on Galaxy Quest.

I went to that back in its first run with a friend who had little to no knowledge of Trek fandom or geekdom, and they enjoyed it.

In fact, at the time I felt that it fulfilled the promise of the 1980s Mel Brooks satire Spaceballs which for me pretty much petered out after the opening sequence.

I kept waiting for Galaxy Quest to fizzle but it had authenticity and carried it through to the end.

ML31

I can’t agree with Galaxy Quest. I saw it years ago and was unimpressed. Saw it a 2nd time a few months ago and remain unimpressed. It just wasn’t funny. There was one good joke and the rest was… Well… Boring.

kmart

ml, that’s how I feel about SPACEBALLS. Going to plaid and a ship full of ___holes were the only things approaching laughs in the whole painful movie.

ML31

I was severely disappointed in Spaceballs as well. I loved Mel Brooks but that outing was just sad.

Tiger2

That’s not true about TNG. All the films were a success financially except Nemesis. And that was only because it was a bad movie in general and its placement at the time.

Again we talk about Kirk, Spock and Bones and Beyond still bombed. Yes, it’s probably a better chance of succeeding but its not a guarantee either.

And frankly Trek NEEDS to take chances. Everyone assumes a movie version will only be a hit with known characters and the Enterprise because no one has TRIED anything else at all. At least the TV shows take chances, major ones at times and why we now have a much deeper universe for it. No one knows how a movie Trek will do with a new cast of characters until someone at least tries it first.

ML31

I would not mind seeing them try a feature film with new characters but I do understand the trepidation on the part of the studio financing the thing. I think it a bit disingenuous to correlate the financial returns of Beyond to the characters. The KU did pretty well financially with the previous two films. Into Darkness was a bad movie and yet it generated the most box office. Same is true of Nemesis. It’s failure was not the quality of the movie but more the circumstances. Just like Beyond.

The people putting up the money generally prefer some sort of assurances. They will likely feel that known characters will resonate with the movie going public more so than a set of original characters. We may not like that but that is the way it is. Getting a Trek movie made with a new set of characters will be a tough sell. Not impossible, mind you. Just a tough sell.

Tiger2

I get all of that obviously and its the reason why we are inundated with so many sequels, prequels and reboots these days because Hollywood spend so much money on these films and becoming more scared to take chances with new things. So of course I understand. My only point is that’s ALSO been proven that audiences will actually watch new things in a familiar universe just as long as its good and there is a connection. Of course I know its still hard to do but it would be nice if they tried ONCE. They don’t have to give it a $150 million budget

And dude Nemesis was NOT a good movie lol. Yes, I know you personally liked it, but the CONSENSUS was from both audiences and critics was that it was bad. Obviously you disagree but if the majority hates it then was bad for most people out there. I mean even the cast hates it lol. If the people who worked on it said they hated it then that’s a pretty big sign it was bad. You constantly make this argument the movie was good and yet ignore literally every barometer out there. It bombed for a lot of reasons but clearly it was also due to bad word of mouth.

That is one of the differences with Beyond, that one WAS generally seen as a good movie with good word of mouth but it still bombed. And yes it was a lot of factors as well so I’m not suggesting it was BECAUSE of the characters obviously no more than why Nemesis did badly, but I don’t think the movie itself had any real hype going in either which was the other issue. Sadly for Beyond I think people mostly just stopped caring among other things. It was not a ‘must see’ like the first two were. I even gave my own anecdote in a post that my own non-Trek friends went and saw the first film but by the time Beyond came out they had mostly lost complete interest in the franchise but I’m talking like three people, so I’m not suggesting it’s real proof or anything. But still, the movies just didn’t hold them and I’m guessing a lot of people were in the same boat (which now seems to be happening with Star Wars although still a huge success there).

As for Nemesis I know for you you really liked it. It would be interesting though if we could find at least ten people on this board who likes it as much as you do. I been here for years and I probably can count on one hand who thought it was a good film.

ML31

I’ve heard people talk about Nemesis and claim it was bad but the reasons for that have not made any sense. There have been two main reasons given. First, Baird was a bad director who didn’t understand Trek. But that doesn’t fly with me because Meyer didn’t really “get” Trek yet he made what has been generally seen to be among the most well loved features if not THE most well loved. Further, after the hot mess that was Insurrection it seemed to me that a change in director was the right move. The next complaint was some vague thing about the characters not being themselves. Which I just don’t see. For the most part they are the same as they always have been. Those actors have been those people for a long time and seem to have them locked down pretty well. No one has been able to give me anything specific about what was different. Was the movie perfect? No. But apart from one set piece the pacing was good and the plot and themes were interesting. It also contained the one and only time I actually felt like Data was more than a walking link to the Enterprise computer. That is quite the feat. When the cast badmouths it I think one must take that with grains of salt. First, Frakes was irritated he didn’t get the directing job. And next, no one really bashed it until AFTER the final box office totals were in. I think they knew it was going to be their swan song and I’ve always felt like they felt a little gyped they didn’t get as good a sendoff as the TOS cast got.

I get that you hated it. Which is fine. Not everyone is going to like everything Trek. Not everyone likes and dislikes the things I do. But to be honest, the only people I have encountered who really severely badmouth that film have been on line. No one I have met in person (and granted I have not gone to too many cons or other Trek events) speak as ill of it as I’ve seen on line. Sure, some have said they didn’t like it that much. But none, to my face at least, have told me they outright hated the thing.

Sorry. I do try to see things from other points of view but from time to time I get a take that I just cannot grasp and no one has been able to explain adequately why they feel the way they do. I mean, I can give reasons and cite examples for why I think TVH was an epic fail. No one has been able to do the same for Nemesis. I just get vagaries. Hell, I can even understand why one might like Discovery!

Tiger2

Ok, that’s all fine. But the problem is you have admitted over and over again you’re not a TNG fan and also admitted you haven’t really watched the show that much. For HARD core fans like myself there was definitely a gap there. Yes the characters definitely seemed ‘off’ in this movie. No, not entirely obviously but yes definitely in parts.

The story itself was fine, but it was executed SO badly. And yes the biggest eye roll was at the end when it tried to recreate WOK (but luckily no other film would ever try that again ;)). I read another post you wrote where you said you didn’t care about Data’s death in the movie because you didn’t really care about Data as a character. Right THERE is exactly the point. Because you DON’T care about Data it didn’t have an effect on you. But for people like ME who loves Data, yeah I thought how he was killed off sucked. It’s literally the same reason why so many hated Generations because how Kirk was killed or TLJ because how Luke died. If you’re not huge fans of those characters then it may not bother you as much (and ironically I had no problems with how they killed off Luke or Kirk BUT I understood why it did for others as fans and yes their outlook of the film is very different because of it).

So yeah, you see it differently partly because you AREN’T as attached to the characters as others. I’m not saying that’s the only reason you liked the film no more as that’s the sole reason others hated it, but it’s one important factor why some feel they way they do versus how you feel about it.

Again, I’m not saying you can’t love it and for the record I don’t hate it and it has gotten better with repeat viewings but still pretty bad for me. But the problem is you seem to suggest others have a problem for not feeling the same way you do about it. You say you only know people online who hated the movie, well I can tell you all my old Trek friends who saw it also hated it, including my best friend from high school who was a bigger TNG fan than I was. We saw it together opening weekend at the Chinese Theater. And I still remember what he said to me when the credits rolled, “Wow that was a piece of sh–.”

But maybe it was better for you since you’re more of a casual TNG fan I don’t know. I mean most people who loved STID loved it because they weren’t really fans of TOS, just the new movies so for them Khan was fine. For most of us, it was the complete opposite lol.

Anyway, its no point of going on about it. We know how we each feel. But if you can’t accept that people just generally thought the film was bad, then yeah it’s no point of continuing. I will say THIS though and that usually things fans considered ‘bad’ at the time sometimes changes with age, like Enterprise for example. People look at that show in a much better light today, especially when compared to the newer stuff. But Nemesis doesn’t seem to have gotten the same turnaround and its been nearly 20 years already.

ML31

I just want to say that I’m a TOS guy and I had not real issues with the way Kirk bit the dust. Also, if I were to feel something for the demise of Data, it would have been in Nemesis because that film succeeded in getting me so see him more as a character than a piece of technology. Strangely enough, the bulk of my feelings about the end of Data was feeling sad for the rest of the crew who DID see him as more than super computer. Putting Data’s sacrifice at the end will always get compared to Spock’s by a lot of fans. There just is no way around it. I felt Data’s situation was different but it sure didn’t help when Picard made the same toast Kirk did in SFS.

One other thing… I did watch every episode of the show and I just did not see even subtle changes in the characters. Only in Data. Picard was different in ALL the movies, however from my point of view. I give you it is possible that I missed it because I didn’t fall in love with the TNG characters. But that doesn’t mean I can’t notice performances. And you want characters not behaving like themselves… Just check out the TOS folks in TVH after they travel back in time. Holy cow it was as if the actors felt they suddenly were in an entirely different movie. A NOT Star Trek movie.

Tiger2

OK, fair enough. We’ll just leave it there.

Holden

Can you too just stop fighting long enough to realize you love each other?

Tiger2

LOL! We usually disagree as much as we agree but I assure you its always out of love! :)

ML31

LOL… You should have heard me and my dad go at it back in the day! :)

TechNoir

Yeah, I see where you’re coming from, JED. It would be a bit risky starting again with new characters in a movie franchise, but I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility to be successful. Standalone movies introduce us to new characters all the time.

Maybe they just need to go back to some novel hook that will catch the attention of audiences. Like Gravity and The Martian, both of which made more at the box office than any of the new Trek movies, they could do a simple survival adventure in the Trek universe. Just an idea.

edwet

> if you invent new characters you start to lose essential elements of the IP
STTNG
STDS9
STVOY
STENT
STDISCO
STANIMATED
STS31
…..

So erm… no

JED

Edwet, my point is that none of these New IPs are proven on the big screen and if you are going to invest $150 million plus on a Theatrical release your financiers will require a proven IP. This is why Voyager, DS9, Enterprise never became Movie franchises. I am sure if they had been more successful on the small screen Paramount CBS would have pursued such a course of action.

Anthony Thompson

I *LOVE IT* that all these folks who constantly criticized the JJ-verse films and the cast are now crying big alligator tears over the end of them. haha. Myself, I’ll be excited to see something new.

Tiger2

Eventually they are going to have to recast at some point. It’s been over ten years already, how long do people think this cast was going to last, 20? TNG had a show and four movies and that was still just a total of 15 years. TOS had the longest run but that was with the original cast.

The problem is they just didn’t strike while the iron was hot. They should’ve made 4-5 films at this point. But they kept procrastinating and the films never became the hit Paramount wanted. It’s going to be four years in July since Beyond first premiered; it’s just too much time between films and audiences will care less and less at this point. And for hardcore Trek fans they now have a big universe of TV shows again so the films are even less of a priority now vs when the Kelvin movies was the only Star Trek around.

odradek

I hope Zazie Beetz will be part of the new cast. Hawley has worked with her before and a part played by a german actress would be a nice gift to german fans.

albatrosity

LOVE Zazie, met her at a pipeline protest in Manhattan last spring and she’s a joy, phenomenal actor as well

TG47

Thanks for the comment odradek.

I agree that it would be great to have more Europeans as part of the efforts to give Trek a diverse cast.

More to the point, it would be super helpful if TPTB made an effort to reach beyond the actors who’s agents are promoting them in LA.

odradek

Thank you TG for supporting my intent. I’m not sure if you know Zazie Beetz, but I feel obligated to set straight that technically speaking Zazie is not full European. Allthough she was born in Germany as the daughter of a German father, her mother is US-American and she grew up since early age in America. She has citizenship of both countries, but considers herself rather as an American.

But nevertheless, since her German is flawless and she has strong family ties to Germany, I personally consider her as full-fledged German.

That she has both American and European sensitivities makes her perfect for Star Trek in my opinion.

Michael K

I love what he is saying, I’ve never heard such a clear understanding of what makes Star Trek work from a producer. This alone makes me interested in what he wants to make for Star Trek.

I think it goes without saying that Paramount is going with a rebooted Star Trek movie franchise, which I fully support. Going back to the Kelvin story and crew would not interest me personally. After 11+ years the novelty has largely run its course and I’m sure the actors have moved on. I think they’d have a hard time bringing audiences back with a Kelvin cast story anyway, not to mention it’s been far too long since the last movie to go back at this point. I think they would have failure on their hands if they tried going back, no matter how good. It wasn’t working anymore.

albatrosity

This, 100%

J-S-M

Ditto this, this! :)

lynn

I disagree. New characters and a new cast does not appeal to me and I have been a fan since the first episode aired in 1966. I have seen every movie that has been made but I’m done with Trek if they reboot yet again. I know that Paramount has to make money from these movies and please their investors but I kinda feel like all Star Trek fans have been misled by all of the information(or lack of) concerning this franchise.

Michael K

I’m always excited for the new thing. I started with TNG and I always appreciated Star Trek the most when it reinvented itself. I was never a TOS fan so the only thing that would have attracted me to the Star Trek universe was something new. I know the same is true for many younger audiences. The moment I feel Star Trek is stagnating by recycling what it’s done, then I worry.

Tiger2

I’m a huge TOS fan and grew up with that show. I doubt I would be a Star Trek fan today without it. But yet I don’t get the romanticism with this show? It was great for its time, it set the tone for future shows and movies but I don’t think it needs to be rehashed over and over again and fortunately it really hasn’t since these reboot films are the first remake of those characters since TUC.

I wasn’t overjoyed about the fact they were redoing TOS because it still felt like a prequel to me although technically it wasn’t. But I obviously understood why they went that direction, certainly in terms of marketing. So I had no real issue with it AS LONG AS we got something new and different down the line which we did with DIS. I had a lot of issues with that too but at least it wasn’t another TOS reboot.

And I was still a kid when TNG came on and I loved it out of the gate, even with its early issues. You’re right, for younger fans today (under 30) who are watching TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT they were born with Star Trek as an already expansive franchise. They obviously know TOS is what started it but they don’t look at it as anymore or less important than everything else. It’s just part of the franchise. It’s exactly the same thing with younger fans who grew up with the Star Wars prequels. They know the OT is the one that defined the franchise but it didn’t define it for them, the prequels did.

It’s exactly why both franchises needs to change. Star Trek thankfully has been doing that since 1987 and with the exception of one or two things its been a huge success. I notice on these boards a lot of older fans seem to still mostly see TOS as defining Star Trek but that’s certainly not the case in places with younger fans and Star Trek needs to stay relevant for them. And it’s clear Kurtzman really gets that and why we have everything from Section 31 to Lower Decks coming. We may not all love the premises or formats but they are clearly trying to expand the base on WHAT Star Trek is for all ages, not simply just a new show with new characters.

So if this is another Kelvin movie with the original cast, that’s fine of course. But if its not I do hope they go a different direction and not think to reboot TOS yet again. They could happen but I’m hoping they are thinking a little more out of the box like the new TV shows seems to be doing. I mean even if you feel you have to used known characters, then do it like Picard is doing it and put them in a completely new situations, characters and settings. That would still feel new while familiar at the same time. Best of both worlds. ;)

TG47

Just dropping a line to say that once again Tiger2 has pretty much expressed my precise thoughts.

Well said!

Michael K

Well said and it’s nice to feel aligned with somebody here. When I became a TNG fan, I learned about the belly-aching from some vocal TOS fans that disliked the TNG version of Star Trek which reminds me of what is happening with new Trek, although social media today amplifies everything. It’s all familiar and I recognize the behavior of fans who claim ownership over everything and demand something that is impossible to recreate (the version of Star Trek they were enchanted by when they were much younger). Rarely do I hear people admit that their version of Star Trek is special to them for personal reasons and that Star Trek deserves an updated voice for a new generation of fans. I swore to never turn into an intolerant fan because I want to be part of the next evolution. Change is vital to Star Trek, that’s why I’m here in the first place. For me, Star Trek has always been about progress and representing a society and future I want to live, which is constantly evolving. The moment it forgets that, then I lose interest and it just becomes pure fantasy and too campy to take seriously. That’s why the TOS remakes just never ever register with me, although it can be fun on a superficial level.

lynn

I agree with you to some extent. I disagree with your belief that us older fans are using TOS as defining Star Trek. That is not the case for me. I loved the original when it first aired on TV because it was the first mature and believable science fiction show I had ever seen. I enjoyed TNG an Voyager when they began. The only one that I didn’t like was DS9. I watched it until I felt the episodes were getting a little weird. I did enjoy the few times that I got to see Enterprise. I think my biggest problem was getting past Scott Bakula(I may have the name spelled wrong). He is a good actor but I just didn’t like him in this. I do think to bring in a new cast along with a new format will spell box office failure. I know as I have stated before that I will not bother to go and see it(how many more reboots to come if this one fails). If Star Trek 4 had never been announced perhaps my feelings would be different, but I feel like the Kelvin story was left hanging. I’m not saying that the time travel script should be done but something is needed to add closure to that timeline. I do think JJ Abrams missed an opportunity by making SYID. There was no new plot and the only new material used seemed to consist of what was needed to fill up extra time to make it a movie.
As far as Star Trek vs Marvel or Star Wars. Both Marvel and Star Wars ended each film or installment with a cliff hanger or teaser post credit scene. I never heard in any conversations with adults or children how good the movies were. I heard projections of who Rey’s parents were or would Ren turn to the light side of the force. In Marvel’s case, all of the movies were interconnected. Miss one and you might miss a piece of valuable info for the next one.

lynn

I disagree. For me the exact opposite is true. If the script is in a new direction and is good then sticking with the same cast makes more sense. Rebooting an already shakey movie franchise is not going to end well or very profitable for the investors.

Chancellor Gowron

I hope that this is about entirely new characters, and they’re not recasting Kirk and crew.

‘As soon as possible’ does not mean any work at all will start in April. If Paramount doesn’t have the investors on board, all this means is they are going to bat around a few ideas over drinks, and figure out if this is worth pursuing or not. We went through this exact same exercise when SJ Clarkson was ‘named’ director, creating imaginary schedules that were nothing more the tissue paper, smoke and mirrors. There’s nothing here but some interest, optimistically.

Thorny

There are differences now, though. Paramount and CBS/Viacom are back under one roof, which means the arguing/negotiating over profit sharing, which hurt Into Darkness and Beyond, is over. Also, Discovery has restored some visibility to the franchise (good and bad) and the excitement over Picard is pretty high. If Picard is at all a hit (and I think it will be) that would be the perfect time for Paramount to strike by announcing Star Trek 14.

tom riker

there’s never been a trek that doesn’t have tethers to the tv series… scary and exciting if that’s the case. and i think we will eventually see a trek 4 with the pine cast. or the tarantino thing with or without him as director. head of paramount said there were 2 movies in the works…

edwet

>and i think we will eventually see a trek 4 with the pine cast
Nope, that’s gone now.

tom riker

nope thats not gone now… we were never gonna see a trek movie again then we were we were gonna see a tarantino trek then no then maybe… after star trek 1 and 5 and 10 trek was dead in the water… anyone who pretends to know what is gonna happen is full of something and it aint romulan ale… i say we enjoy what we get which is amazingly a lot right now… picard… discovery… section 31… maybe pike spock… 2 animated shows… a new movie (though that’s a long way off since he hasn’t even an idea what he’s doing yet) and the tarantino one which could happen with him or without or not at all… hazah

J_Randomuser

I’m actually very encouraged by this. I’m a big fan of Fargo and I’m intrigued by the notion of a Trek film that is entirely stand-alone from a pre-existing series. I think this might actually be some very fertile territory to explore Trek in some fun and interesting ways without being absolutely bound-up with a series of characters with whom we already have a lot of baggage.

PaUl

Well it would add a good $25-30M to the budget with a new crew, introduction time onscreen for the characters, new starship, new starship sets etc etc. So Hawley will need to consider that & so will Paramount. I think when all is said & done the Kelvin crew will return in a more drama less action story. At this stage its pretty pointless Paramount spending big money on yet another Star Trek Movie relaunch. They just need to figure out how to use the existing cast within a smaller budget but still make it epic, cinematic & most of all REALLY good!! With the right talent this is easily possible!!

edwet

>Well it would add a good $25-30M to the budget with a new crew
And then reduce it by the same amount with less bloated actor costs.
Movies create assets like this from scratch all the time.

Tiger2

I really hope he means he’s talking a new set of characters and not just ANOTHER TOS rehash. I love TOS but do something new if you’re not going to use the Kelvin cast. This is the time for Star Trek to expand beyond the same two crews in the movies and go deeper. I don’t care when it take place, it could be the 22nd century or the 28th century, movies are not the same as a show, but at least try something original. Star Wars will FINALLY move beyond the Skywalker era in the movies, maybe its time for the Trek films to do the same.

But yes let’s see if this will even happen first. I think we are a bit jaded at this point for good reason with so many non-starters like the Hemsworth movie and now the Tarantino movie going nowhere. This is the third separate project and its probably up in the air until they get a script first and at least go from there.

It’s just crazy how different the TV and movie worlds are right now. CBS probably has 12 Star Trek shows in play for the next decade and yet it feels like it will probably take that long before we get another movie.

michelle

the next star wars movie is going to be set 100 years before the events of the phantom menace during the time of the high republic

Tiger2

Exactly! It’s going to be the first movie that will have nothing to do with Skywalkers, the Empire, Emperor and so on. They are FINALLY going in a new direction. Even the spin off movies like Solo and RO was basically just stuff based around the OT. I think why The Mandolorian is so successful because its the first live action story that is not directly tied into all of that stuff. It exists in that era and so very familiar but the characters are removed from the bigger story and give us a chance to see a different side of that universe. And as far as we know, the Mandalorian hasn’t been revealed to be Han Solos long lost brother either but it’s still early. ;)

The point being MOST fans can accept new things. Most of us are just happy to be in those universes. Sure we all want things and characters we already know and love and why so many are excited about Picard. But the irony in that is Picard started unknown in a completely different era as well from the beloved TOS and now eventually became even more popular than the original show for a lot of people, me included. It proves if you give people something new in a familiar environment they will still eat it up just as long as its good as the stuff you fell in love with in the first place.

Captain Robert April

Everyone says ST2009 was a success. I think it wasn’t. It had as many if not more flaws that ST V. Had it been better, the sequels would have been more profitable. In terms of story and other qualities, Beyond was the best of the reboots by far. Into Darkness would have done much better if it was an updated “Where No Man Has Gone Before” as rumored. I would look forward to someone else’s take on the Star Trek ‘verse. It sounds like Noah might be the right kinda guy.

albatrosity

As a story, ST09 is a mess, that much is true. As an enterprise [pun intended] it was a big success, but not the biggest it could’ve been or what we all wanted it to be. Without Star Wars, Trek had the opportunity to grow into a behemoth, and had they actually planned the three movies they contracted the cast for instead of winging it as they went along, they would’ve been massively successful. Instead JJ took his hiatus to work on his stupid Super 8 and STID was another mess of a movie that failed to build to anything for Beyond, rushing the reboot timeline into a coffin after only three films, albeit three films that somehow fit well together as a package. Beyond successfully wove together many themes from the first two movies to make it a fitting ending to the trilogy, and given all the failures to launch of a Trek 4, I’m more than happy with calling it finished.

Tiger2

Well it WAS a success. It has 94% RT score, the highest than any Trek movie to date and it made over $200 million in America, which is pretty crazy for a Star Trek film. It definitely brought out non-Trek fans to see it because even my friends who never remotely cared about Star Trek went and saw it lol. But no I don’t think it was as big of a success as Paramount hoped either. Frankly I don’t think any of the films were WHEN you take in how much they spent for them and why there has been such a slow movement since Beyond. Once that movie bombed I think it just put the breaks on how they saw those films in general.

And I think the other problem was that while the first movie definitely brought in new fans to Star Trek, it didn’t really sustain them either. All my friends who went and saw the 2009 movie didn’t bother to watch STID. To my disappointment they were already over it lol. I think some watched it later but not in the movie theater. By the time Beyond came around Star Trek had become a non factor again. One of those guys did start watching some of the shows though and really got into TNG and VOY which was fun to see someone I knew becoming a fan of the franchise as a whole. But haven’t spoken to him in years so no clue if he got into anymore of the shows or still watch those. But I think the new movies did open up others to try the other shows, but they probably did feel too dated although I imagine a lot who liked the Kelvin moves probably started watching DIS if the other stuff felt too dated.

But overall, I think the problem with the Kelvin movies came down to two things for NEW fans at least: They waited too long between the movies to make sequels and the movies felt too standalone, so it gave them no reason to be invested in future films beyond just liking the characters and setting. It’s interesting with ALL the other franchises from MCU to Stars Wars to even the Fast and Furious movies making these huge story arcs the Kelvin films mostly went the opposite way. They are basically standalone movies. To this day I wonder why they didn’t try create a three part story to get people to come back because you look around today and its all shared universes and serialized stories. I believe Harry Potter and the LOTR films really started the modern trend but since MCU it’s only gotten more heightened. And remember those franchises don’t wait 3-4 years between films, the turn around is just so much faster today and why we got two Avengers movies two years in a row along with everything else. Maybe if the films came out a little faster, more would’ve stayed interested but with no big story to push things forward made it less of a priority.

More ironic since the Star Trek TV shows are going that way more than ever now.

tony

the most successful period creatively for the ‘trek’ movies was the ‘khan’ trilogy.
shame the rest of the films could not build another trilogy/arc to keep things stable.

ML31

That was not planned in advance at all. WoK was written to be a standalone. SFS came in because WoK was a financial success. They did not plan to do TVH back when SFS was being made. That decision came after. The unfortunate thing about those three films is that after the greatness of WOK the next one got worse and the one after that really fell over the cliff. So you never really know how these things are going to go.

tony

‘spock’ is as good as ‘khan’ and ‘voyage’ the most successful of the OS films at the box office.
it was ‘frontier’ that let the side down, though it had fun moments.
‘undiscovered’ works best as the fourth in the trilogy.

ML31

Respectfully disagree. SFS was just OK. I didn’t like that it completely undermined the main theme of the previous film. TVH did bring in the box office mojo but it was also the most NOT Star Trek of the Star Trek films. Sorta like how STID was the most successful of the KU films yet it seems the fans consensus placed it at the worst of the three. FF was a slight improvement in that their jokes actually landed and it did have a couple of good moments but it was still overall a mess of a movie. I used to think that could be attributed to production issues but after learning about Shatner’s actual plans for the film I’m not so sure. But who knows? MAYBE it would have worked had it been done the way he envisioned. But I have my doubts.

If you want a trilogy then the TOS films work best as WoK, SFS then straight to TUC.

Disinvited

ML31,

The director did not film TWOK with a coffin on the planet scene. That was added BEFORE the film was released to the theaters to open a door for a sequel BEFORE any BO success.

ML31

The story I heard was there were test screenings of the finished product that did not include the coffin scene. The results were that people came out of it feeling down. Like it was missing something. It was missing hope. So ILM went down to Golden Gate Park and filmed the intact torpedo/tomb. That did the trick. I cannot recall if Meyer signed off on that or not but it was done as a result of test screenings. Further still, during filming Nimoy was reportedly having 2nd thoughts about “killing” Spock and asked if he could do something that might leave the door ajar. Hence, “Remember”. So obviously sequel was in people’s mind but that doesn’t mean the film was made with the INTENT to make a sequel. If it didn’t do well it still would have been all she wrote. Just as that very first Star Wars movie was not written to have sequels. In fact, Lucas truncated his original work to make it one stand alone film. When it became a hit, he altered his original treatment to make his fully story work AFTER the fact.

blackmocco

Meyer most definitely did NOT sign off on the coffin scene. He didn’t want anything to do with it.

TonyD

The TWOK/SFS/TVH trilogy has not aged well for me.

I always thought TWOK’s premise – undoing the ending of Space Seed – and conflict based resolution were flawed and counter to Trek’s core values.

Upon rewatching TSFS recently I saw so many gaping plot contrivances like the dumb, closed minded Federation officers, the borderline caricature Klingons, having David go off to confront the Klingons instead of a trained officer, etc. that large swaths of the movie became borderline unwatchable.

TVH similarly hasn’t aged well at all. The music score feels all wrong to me and the attempts at humor and 20th century characters are often cringeworthy.

Final Frontier fares no better. The films also just look cheap a lot of the time and I’ve come to the conclusion the prior enjoyment I derived was more from nostalgia than viewing a quality product. They are still more entertaining than recent attempts at Trek on TV but as cinematic outings I find them very lacking.

Kang

Gillian Taylor: “You guys like Italian?”
Kirk: “yes”
Spock: “no”
Kirk: “no”
Spock: “yes”
Kirk: “yes”
Spock: “no”
Kirk: “Yes. I love Italian. And so do you.”
Spock: (beat) “Yes.”

Star Trek ala Vaudeville. Brilliant.

ML31

More like tired. None of the jokes in TVH landed. Most were facepalm inducing. Eyeroll worthy at best.

Cmd.Bremmon

In my opinion ST 2009 was a success leaving everyone ready for a follow up with THE 1701 – Kirk, Spock, Dr. McCoy, Uhura – a great cast and the universe to play with. And then came into Darkness (the only mistake being the massive bland Apple bridge versus the far more exciting 1701 bridge we saw in Discovery)….. which was a disaster. We didn’t get exploration, we didn’t get the 1701 vs. a D-7 battle cruiser at long last we got nonsense. Kahn as it turns out is just a poor abused guy trying to find his family. The Klingon Empire is so primitive that you can fire drones from the neutral zone and fly to the homeworld when you don’t want to beam from Earth to Qo’nos. Why even have starships if you can just beam that far? The Enterprise of TOS / Motion pictures suddenly can’t last ten seconds in combat before almost crashing to Earth – it’s so flimsy it might as well be the 1701-D. Kirk gets super hero blood. The return of a Carol Marcus couldn’t make up for the bad writing. And why – for a nonsensical George Bush analog that is forgotten only 10 years after the fact (get it – Starfleet drones = Bush, so clever??) which ISIS walked all over (is Kahn/ISIS supposed to be good?) A total nonsensical turn off and now with Beyond having destroyed the 1701 in an effort to reboot after the disaster of Into Darkness that we never do get new TOS stories…. All you need to do is look at the Pike / Number One / Spock and the 1701 reboot scenes in Discovery to see what people wanted continued after 2009 and what could have been.. They had an opportunity and worse than a poor marksman they threw the arrow away.

Vulcan Soul

I will never forgive ST09, Abrams and his clique the destruction of Vulcan. It was a full-on attack on the core of Trek and its promotion of logic and reason. It’s certainly no coincidence that ever since then Trek has focused on fetishized emotion and associates logic with poison and terrorism, Abrams’ disciple Kurtzman being a particular fan of that direction. It’s THE FEELS (TM)!

albatrosity

It’s great that they’re working beyond the framework of a Kelvin timeline cast; that ship, unfortunately, has sailed. But I’m also not keen on the idea of the movie being made in a vacuum without regard to the other Trek being produced. Star Trek is the only franchise I know of that has a bunch of media being produced that’s set in *multiple eras* of the same timeline. General audiences tuning into any given show may not understand its relationship to what else is out there; maybe they’ll think Disco season 3 [or even S2 or 1] is set at the same time as Picard, which it isn’t. The producers will have to be very careful in *planning* this content to avoid this confusion. I’m not saying they need to have every detail mapped out like an MCU, but to not fit all the pieces together cohesively could be a costly and creative mistake on their part, and I’d hate for Trek to go the way of Star Wars by completely botching a storytelling opportunity by not planning things out from the beginning.

TechNoir

Well, I wish him all the best.

Nothing against action movies in general, but it’s my personal hope they somehow break free of what’s become the standard blockbuster mold, over several decades now, of fighting a big bad with a big weapon on a platform and we’ve got to disengage the thing before the other thing blows up the universe, etc. Could we change it up a bit? Maybe a survival story? Or a weird timey wimey dimensional thing? Talking tribbles? I don’t know, just something different.

Michael D Cassidy

Discovery would be working fine with an all new cast if they didn’t have such terrible writing. Hawley’s a total pro. Fargo has been consistently excellent and even if Legion didn’t work for you (second season left me pretty cold), there’s no denying he’s a man with a vision, one that veers more to the cerebral end of things than just blowing shit up and burning your optic nerves out. I’m all for a brand new cast and adventures with a smaller budget. Less worry about canon, more focus on a good idea, strong storytelling and interesting characters. No reason big-screen Trek has to tie-in with what’s going on with CBSAA. Just stick the ship out in deep space and you’re good to go.

Eric

‘I have my own take on the franchise as a lifelong fan.’

‘I don’t know. But new characters often involve new cast.’

‘It’s still very early days, so I can’t really be more specific. But it’s going to be different.’

Uh-oh. An icy-cold finger of dread just raked down my spine. I’m not liking the sound of this. At all.

PEGG! ORCI! REPORT TO THE WRITING ROOM ON THE DOUBLE! WE HAVE A HULL BREACH!!!

Gary 8.5

I am not going to worry about what Hawley is doing until I KNOW what he is doing. Could n e great, you never know.

Vulcan Soul

The balkanization of canon and fracturing of fandom that is about to happen will make the onscreen rationalizations of the Abramsverse or Discovery’s “visual reboot” seem like cute child’s play in comparison!

Why can Star Wars do what Star Trek seemingly can’t, create a singular universe spanning 40 years of production history?

blackmocco

You’re conveniently glossing over that out of eleven movies in forty years, only three and a half of them are worth watching. The strict adherence to canon ends up strangling the life out of all these franchises. Just make a good story with good characters. Who cares about the rest?

Tiger2

Uh, in YOUR opinion only. I like most of the films but yes some were definitely in the unwatchable territory but I would flip that around and say only three are not worth watching for me. The overwhelming majority I at least enjoyed but I am a bit torn on the last one still and I enjoyed that one as well.

ML31

I would agree. I think there is one that is just plain unwatchable and the other two are difficult to watch. The rest vary in quality but have SOMETHING in them worth while.

Danpaine

I couldn’t disagree with that estimate more. But to each his own.

Aus Trekker

Disagree completely.

Danpaine

“Why can Star Wars do what Star Trek seemingly can’t, create a singular universe spanning 40 years of production history?”

Well put, VS. As bassmaster says below, this franchise is a mess.

Vulcan Soul

I want to add other media reports on these comments posted several days ago put a decidedly different and less benign spin on this… his comments to “a new start” meaning another (hard) reboot, this time without caring how this all fits in with 50 years of canon. I find it ridiculous that (as expressed above) canon is what is preventing writers from delivering great stories when so much bad in the movies was tied to canon violations and violations to the core values of Trek!

Fasafan

I’d be in hog heaven if TPTB ignored the destruction of Romulus, thus basically making the Kelvin movies their own…thing. Alas, seems STPicard is going to squelch that hope.

Tiger2

Since the same guy who created Picard is literally the same guy who wrote the destruction of Romulus in the first movie, I don’t know how anyone thought that would ever be ignored.

lynn

Could it be that perhaps Star Wars fans are more loyal and forgiving than Star Trek fans? I was there for the first episode of Star Trek and the first Star Wars film so I have been a fan of both for a very long time. It just seems like to me Star Trek fans are very divided not supportive of the franchise. I do not think that you will ever get enough of the fans on the same page to create a “singular universe spanning 40 years of production history”.

J-S-M

A Trek film with no baddie! Come on, let’s show other franchises how it’s done – embarrass them even – and bring back some intelligence – as well as the thrills – to big screen Trek, and take the films in a different direction. I think many are getting bored with endless ‘pew pew pew’ dumbed down KABOOM action fare. There hasn’t been a truly EPIC STAR Trek film since The Motion Picture. It’d certainly be a challenge, but I’m sure melding an audience pleaser to an intelligent story that’d stand up to repeated viewings is entirely possible. I hope this isn’t rushed into production (ala the last Star Wars saga) and a solid script is hammered into being first… Fingers crossed!

Snoopytrek

.. what almost killed trek was too many plates spinning at the same time to the point that rick berman and paramount were wearing out their production staffs and creative people just to milk the cow and make a few more bucks. Each movie and even the series at the time should have had time on their own and an extra year or so between the movies. We no more came to the end of next gen when we got ds9 who begot voyager. That’s one reason berman went back to a prequel in enterprise so as to not crossover yet they actually ran out of ideas but the studio wanted more.. thus enterprise maybe wasn’t the best idea. The next gen movies could have been better after first contact if they could have received more creative and especially writing time before premiering the next. Perhaps as some of you have said, trek should stay on TV AND not role out another series until Picard has finished. The irony..if star wars hadn’t been so popular, paramount may have done Kirk and crew in the st 2 tv series instead..

I’mPaul

This. Guy. Gets. It.

NCC1976

I don’t want new characters or a new take on the franchise. Just make a good 4th film of the Kelvin Timeline with the current cast, or don’t bother making a new movie at all. Mr. Hawley if your not going to give us that, then please immediately remove yourself from the Trek franchise.

Tiger2

So when the Kelvin cast is done you’re suggesting to never make another Star Trek movie again? I like the Kelvin movies too but they are far from the end all and be all of Star Trek and only a blip when compared to across the entire franchise.

For the record I don’t have a problem if they made another one, but no one can be really surprised if they eventually go another direction. Once Pine walked away the first time, they had to start thinking about other options.

NCC1976

Pretty much. Any new Trek takes should be done on the small screen, and the films should keep to established characters and story arches.

Tiger2

No offense but that’s ridiculous. Star Trek has had 10 films before the Kelvin cast showed up for decades and with the exception of a few of them were all successful.

I like the Kelvin movies but let’s be honest they only made as much money as they did because they threw in mostly sexy and hot actors and gave the movies a Star Wars vibe with a $150 million budget. It’s not like they can’t repeat that again with future Star Trek movies (although I personally hope they don’t all just be huge action movies but wouldn’t be surprised or upset if they stuck to that direction in the future). But maybe they hired this guy because they do want something more cerebral again which most of the Trek films were before the Kelvin movies even if they did have action in them. Let’s hope so! He seems to be suggesting that which is a huge plus.

And I do generally agree the movies probably will do better with characters people know. I’m not arguing that obviously, but it doesn’t mean people WON’T see a movie without that either. My guess is it will just come down to the movie itself. And yes if they throw in enough big stars and turn it into another huge action movie it will get an audience. The only question is how big? Even the Kelvin movies were never as big as Paramount wanted them to be and why its taking so long to get another one made.

But yes chances are they will unfortunately just rehash TOS and TNG reboots in future films since those two are the most known in the franchise.

A34

They need to make a TNG reboot movie with Vin Diesel as the new Picard.

blackmocco

I would watch that. Haha!

Steve Buscemi as Riker. Danny De Vito as Troi. Helen Mirren as Beverly. Ellen Di Generis as Worf. Michael Dorn as Geordi.

Make it so.

I’mPaul

Disagree. The Kelvin timeline was ultimately a creative failure. 4 years was too long between movies and pop culture didn’t take much more of them. I’m ready to move on.

A34

You can say the same thing about the prime universe movies.

A34

This movie will never see the light of day.

Vulcan Soul

For once our optimism matches ;)

But it’s also true that with every failure the likelihood of a hard reboot and tossing out of 50 years of canon increases.

A34

Movie goers don’t care about ST canon. They just want to a fun movie. A ST movie made for ST fans will always fail.

Vulcan Soul

I don’t care about “moviegoers who want fun” though. They have plenty of movies to chose from. And pandering to this group is exactly why recent Trek movies tanked.

A34

And pandering to Star Trek fans will make it tank as well. Maybe Star Trek shouldn’t be making movies.

i'mpaul

Prediction: this will delay, delay, delay until they finally throw it out, the merger is complete, and Kurtzman (or whomever is running the ST Universe at the time,) will take over the movies, and it will feel consistent with whatever ST on TV is doing by that time.

UthertheGreenShirt

There is the Enterprise C that could be a movie.

international_pat

I honestly think there’s something here. We know PART of the story … a trilogy on the C could be amazing … Part I sets the backstory, introduces the characters, has them outsmarting an opponent or solving a mystery that explores the characters and provides more of an emotional arc; at the end of Part I, Captain Garrett and the C receive a distress call from Narendra III setting up a cliff-hanger. Part II is an extended take on the lead up to and battle of Narendra III … the pacing is really important here, similar in feel to Hunt For Red October … not sure how you get around alt-Tasha Yar suddenly appearing on The Bridge mid-battle with the audience … writers can figure that out … but it leads to a cliff-hanger with the crew being captured and taken to Romulus and Part III then treads entirely new ground exploring a POW story and what happens there … the surviving crew getting slowly knocked off one-by-one, the tragedy of Tasha being forced to become the consort of a Romulan general … only to die trying to escape, emotionally scaring our audience and leaving a young Sela to be raised a Romulan.

ML31

The less we get of Sela and Yar the better. But I do like the idea of filling in the gap between TOS and TNG.

Danpaine

Yes. Exploring the 70 (or so) years between TOS and TNG could be very interesting. And original. Was kind of hoping for that with DSC, which obviously didn’t happen.

Vulcan Soul

Fans as always more creative than those hacks posing as writers! It’s not canon strangling them, it’s their complete and utter lack of creativity!

A34

Really? Those Trek fan movies are some of the worst slop I have ever seen.

A34

It won’t be interesting to the average movie watcher.

Han Solo’s backstory. Guaranteed hit!! Oh, wait….

A34

It still made millions.

sam

well i still want to see the movie cast we have right now.

PEB

I’ll skip reading the comment section. I’m sure it’s mostly just crapping on any member of the new/current Trek team and concepts. I will say though that I feel positive about this. Let’s really move away from the films being forced to be a huge event film centered on any of the Enterprise ships and their crew. I’m all for having diversity in the film arm of Trek and maybe just telling a good sci-fi story (yes you can have a big bad and action if you want) but just do something a little different.

TG47

I’m frankly curious about how this will work out.

It sounds as though Hawley will not eschew special effects, but won’t be relying on them to carry the narrative.

So. Not a saturation experience.

But one has to wonder what will make these films warrant cinematic as opposed to streaming television treatment.

jean-baptiste

hello from estonia! sorry, englishe is not very great!

I like the first Star Trek film so very nice. not much action but it male people think about things, how grand space is and how much adventure we could have there

I like the Star Trek where people think on how to solve a problems, not shoot and blow thing up on anger and rage.

I like original Star Trek so very nice every story very moral, make people think very deeply i feel.

I do not like new Star Trek Films, so much noise and explosion and people running around. it has no soul

i'mpaul

WELCOME! I agree totally.

Danpaine

I’m actually more excited about Fargo season 4 than this venture at this point, but am hopeful this guy sticks to his guns and creates a more cerebral Trek film than we’ve seen in over 15 years. As I felt with proposed QT Trek…why not? Make the film. I’d rather see a new offering over nothing.

Alczar

No, we don’t need another reboot. The new Star Treks are reboots. Discovery is a reboot. Actually, STD is not even Stat Trek. Star Trek is about the ship (or station), her crew, and discovering places/things/people. STD is about Michael Burnham. That’s it. Nothing else. Take any character out of any episode of ST and you still have a watchable show. Take Michael Burnham out of Discovery and you have a few hours of jibberish. We need STP (PIKE), not a third season of the Burnham Show or BS.

Danpaine

Agreed, another reboot film would be tiresome and show no creativity whatsoever. But Hawley is being vague on that. And agreed with your take on DSC, as well.

lynn

I just read on a website that Hawley actually liked Galaxy Quest better than Trek. I really hope this is not the case because the Galaxy Quest that I remember was terrible. I’m trying to find that website again. I hope that I misread the article because to model Trek after Galaxy Quest would definitely be suicide for the franchise.

ML31

Hey… I thought I was alone in not liking Galaxy Quest. I honestly do not understand the love that film gets. I get that it’s about fans and obviously the show in the movie was a stand in for Star Trek. But only one of the jokes managed to produce a laugh. Granted, it was a very good laugh. But one? ONE?

A34

Discovery is STAR TREK and it’s a SUCCESS.

i'mpaul

Season 1 of Star Trek Discovery was really uneven and ultimately not all that good. It was also better than the first season of EVERY other modern Star Trek show. So we’re well ahead of the curve and I think it’s about to soar in season three!

Tiger2

I thought it was the worst season out of the entire franchise. Maybe tie with TNG first season but I had a LOT of problems with it frankly. But that said I thought season 2 was better than most of the other season 2 shows. Not all but most.

Alczar

A ‘new cast’ could mean less time for the main charactors and more time for 6-12 NEW faces. OR it could mean something completely different. I guess the guy is too scared to go on record promising someting that will get him fired or fried by the fans.

lynn

I think a new cast ,characters or reboot will get him fried pre and post filming and release of the film. I would have included fired but I think Paramount would stay with Mr. Hawley to the end.

CAPT MATT

Although the latest cast is terrific, a new one wouldn’t be the worst thing. But if the future of Trek is a new cast every few years, it’ll be harder to rebuild the emotional connections that help make Star Trek so popular. Is that a fair trade-off with doing away with evil admirals, unbelievable plot devices and lens flairs? Maybe!

Richard

I wrote a fan novel about the Time Trek portion of Star Trek… Imagine how you could clear up timelines, explain things, use old and new material to go into the background of things. I’d love to be part of something like that…

Fasafan

The FASA Star Trek Roleplaying game was genius for that. Pure genius, in the same vein as John Ford’s “The Final Reflection” and Fred and Stan Goldstein’s “Star Trek: Spaceflight Chronology”.

My favorite view of the Trek-verse was printed 30 to 40 years ago!

VoR

Agreed…until TNG came out, the FASA Trek lore was the best stuff out there that embellished and expanded upon the original series. It was a little more outer-space navy than NASA, but it would have been interesting to see Trek go in that direction…

bassmaster22

This would have been helpful five years ago. The franchise is a mess – trying to please very single person on earth and going in 22 different directions. It’s a huge over compensation from when there was no Star Trek.

Sadly, this Trek feels like it’s becoming an entertainment punchline. Less is more.

But realistically we know that Trek is a CBS merch delivery vehicle.

Vulcan Soul

Kurtzman recently said there are two more unannounced live action series coming up.

One will feature a black female Captain exploring her emotionality.

The other will feature a black female Admiral exploring her emotionality.

;-)

A34

Sounds 100 times better than the TNG alien forehead of the week format.

Vulcan Soul

False dichotomy, A34.

A34

Say what you want. For me watching generic starship crews exploring endless fake new worlds is a recipe for disaster. If you want to see real exploration the turn on PBS.

Djeewhy

These are good intentions! And why not give the actors of the Kelvin timeline the opportunity to play the same characters but in the original timeline? Change of casting without changing the casting. Approach the characters in a more academic way and give them background. I find the idea attractive.

lynn

Me Too!! Djeewhy

Cmd.Bremmon

I feel for the writers who were so close to being able to have the TOS universe to play with. In my opinion ST 2009 was a success (the only mistake being the massive bland Apple bridge versus the far more exciting 1701 bridge we saw in Discovery) leaving everyone ready for a follow up with THE 1701 – Kirk, Spock, Dr. McCoy, Uhura – a great cast and the universe to play with. And then came into Darkness ….. which was a disaster. We didn’t get exploration, we didn’t get the 1701 vs. a D-7 battle cruiser at long last we got nonsense. Kahn as it turns out is just a poor abused guy trying to find his family. The Klingon Empire is so primitive that you can fire drones from the neutral zone and fly to the homeworld when you don’t want to beam from Earth to Qo’nos. Why even have starships if you can just beam that far? The Enterprise of TOS / Motion pictures suddenly can’t last ten seconds in combat before almost crashing to Earth – it’s so flimsy it might as well be the 1701-D. Kirk gets super hero blood. The return of a Carol Marcus couldn’t make up for the bad writing. And why – for a nonsensical George Bush analog that is forgotten only 10 years after the fact (get it – Starfleet drones = Bush, so clever??) which ISIS walked all over (is Kahn/ISIS supposed to be good?) A total nonsensical turn off and now with Beyond having destroyed the 1701 in an effort to reboot after the disaster of Into Darkness that we never do get new TOS stories…. All you need to do is look at the Pike / Number One / Spock and the 1701 reboot scenes in Discovery to see what people wanted continued after 2009 and what could have been.. They had an opportunity and worse than a poor marksman they threw the arrow away. But now what? Some ideas: 1) Pike / Number One / Spock movie with the Discovery Enterprise in the Prime Timeline 2) Have Pine as Kirk and the Beyond cast but on the TOS Enterprise (Discovery reboot bridge, etc) but in the Prime Timeline 3) Combination? How Kirk takes command of the Enterprise from Pike in the Prime Timeline 4) Just reboot the whole thing. Start from scratch starting with Enterprise but with primitive ships, no transporters, machine guns instead of phasers, no calling Starfleet for help, nuclear weapons, new colony projects, trying to convince the Vulcans/Andorians to work with primitive emotional Earth, no peace with the Klingons/Romulans, Earth rebuilding after WW3 and evil genetically engineered mad men, aliens everywhere with an Earth with much to learn.

thebiggfrogg

Is it just me or does he look like he could be Simon Pegg’s brother?

lynn

I agree. Is that why Simon Pegg seems to have so much inside info on what is happening with the franchise?

Cygnus-X1

Well, I don’t know who this guy is and haven’t seen anything he’s done, but my initial reaction to a totally new Trek cast and premise is excitement. Then I remember that JJ Abrams and Bad Robot will be involved, and that casts a pall on my enthusiasm. Still, there is a glimmer of hope.

TG47

I’m not sure that this would be a Bad Robot production.

Doesn’t their deal with Paramount expire in 2020?

I’m not entirely sure that the situation was clear when Hawley’s agreement was announced in late November.

Can anyone offer something citable on this point?

The gentleman’s agreement with WB is that BR can finish up anything they are actively involved in under previous contracts. Presumably that includes one more Trek feature with Paramount. I’d imagine that with other pokers in the fire, BR’s involvement would be limited to Executive Producer. In my opinion, and I’ve been known to be wrong.

blackmocco

This.

Cygnus-X1

All of these details would be good to know.

The IMDB page is of no help, as it lists the BR Trek cast and crew. I remember Orci saying that he had nothing to do with his own IMDB page and so not to put too much stock in them.

IMDB is a movie based Wiki. You could register and edit, if you like.

Cygnus-X1

Oh man… I could have some fun creating my dream team of director, producer, writers and actors for a Trek movie and TV series. Chris Nolan is the first that comes to mind as director and co-writer. And I think that Nathan Fillion in a Trek leading role is overdue. For producer, pretty much any serious candidate who is not JJ Abrams and not associated in any way with JJ Abrams or Bad Robot would make the cattle call. That excludes all producers from Disney’s Star Wars trilogy. It also excludes people like Michael Bay who would not qualify as a serious candidate. JJ Abrams shouldn’t qualify either, really, but we’re living in a time when the worst storyteller in Hollywood of recent memory has been put in charge of the two biggest sci-fi movie franchises. But, I digress.

Dr Zaius

More story and less lens flares or Beastie Boys please. Less overdone action scenes would be a plus too.

Dr M'Benga

More Kirk on a motorcycle. Nothing says “boldly going” like a dirt bike.

thebiggfrogg

Nothing, except a space toilet.

Jack L Burgin

Not interested in another reboot, to damn soon, and tired of rehashing stories, do a sequel or something with different characters not a reboot of the same ones.

tony

the kelvin saga has stalled.
they have to do something to refresh the series or leave to pasture while the tv shows do the work of keeping ‘trek’ alive.

thebiggfrogg

It was a misprint. He said ‘new cats”. He is thinking of a mashup between Star Trek and Cats. The crossover event we have all been waiting for it. Bonus: It could get Patrick Stewart and Ian MacKellan together on the screen. And Shatner would make one hell of a “fat cat”.

This would refresh the series big time!

Drink-Mix Man

John Cho as Captain Sulu of the USS Excelsior! Whatever other cast members still want to be a part of this can transfer over with him.

Cmd.Bremmon

Ha ha Now that would actually be fun – especially if they used all the Motion Picture era sets, uniforms, etc (easily the best of Trek).

TonyD

I honestly don’t see a path to a successful cinematic Star Trek movie. After the novelty of the first JJ Abrams movie, which did as well as it did more on his clout at the time than anything else, the last couple of entries have been derided by core fans and largely dismissed by the general public. Back in 2008 Abrams was the hot commodity and the film rode his coattails to a become a moderate success. But in reality, when you adjust for inflation, it barely did better than ST:TMP. The filmmakers could not even sustain that level of business, with each subsequent outing engendering less and less interest despite a strong main and supporting cast.

If a high power filmmaker and established actors could not hold on to public interest, I don’t see how bringing in a new cast would work any better with fans or non-fans. Recast the TOS characters again and you’ll quickly get calls of desperation and lack of imagination. If you do stunt casting, hiring current big names you risk having something like Green Lantern, where the actors just didn’t fit the roles and the filmmakers never really understood the makeup of the source material to begin with.

Star Trek and the big screen have always been a problematic union, and the international box office which is so important these days has never been there for Trek. I know Paramount will try again and again but at some point you just have to accept that that the IP just doesn’t resonate at a high enough level to be a major cinematic blockbuster.

Noah Hawley’s Legion was one of the best shows of the last couple of years. I trust his vision, and his examples of those Stak Trek scenes that meant something to him are exactly what’s missing with jj abrams dismal movies.
I have great expectations for Hawlwy. This, and the potential Pike show, are the only glimmers of hope in an otherwise disastrous Star Trek universe.
Will this be an Avenger’s size blockbuster? I doubt it, but if they budget the movie accordingly, it can be successful.

A34

The movie will bomb.

A34

Never heard of that show. Is it on Netflix?

Jonboc

Jeez. Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. This franchise is beyond fractured.

Timc5

I think and hope JJverse is dead. Time to get back to the original spirit of TOS and not some mindless action film. Looks like Hawley is going to make this Trek cheaper by a) less action and special effects and b)entirely new (cheaper) cast. That way Paramount can attract investors by making a movie that is easier to turn a profit. Just like Wrath of Khan did after The Motion Picture.

Cygnus-X1

That all sounds good to me. Here’s hoping.

lynn

Yes they can make a cheaper Trek movie and yes they can attract investors but the bottom line is box office success. I think most people are not interested in a new cast but perhaps changing the content. As I have said previously this cast does not have to be confined to the Kelvin universe. I remember one TNG episode that literally had a scene with multiple ships in different timelines appearing in one scene. Give them a different timeline and change the plot format but don’t change the “Kelvin” cast whether as new characters or new actors playing these parts. Not even remotely interested in seeing the movie if he does use totally new actors.

lynn

In my opinion Timc5 the JJverse is not dead only misdirected. It could be turned into a more cerebral Star Trek. Also if I was an investor I would want actors that audiences knew rather than unknowns. I don’t think investors will take that kind of chance and roll the dice on both a “new direction” and unknown actors. The old saying that you have to spend money to make money.

VoR

The prefix code sequence is such an iconic, wonderful, thoughtful scene. It is quite encouraging that Hawely is drawing his inspiration from that. I miss thoughtful Star Trek. Beyond had brief moments of it, but we’re overdue for a movie with smart and clever Kirk.

Dalton

I would like to see a Star Trek movie or series set in the future after TNG. The way TNG was set 80 years IIRC after TOS.

I want to see the federation thriving. Old enemies either defeated or absorbed.

Maybe a new 5 year mission to an unexplored or under explored area of the galaxy.

New cast, new characters, same ship but obviously more advanced.

I am not interested in any more reboots, prequels or gender swapping films.

New stories, new universe, new characters. No more JJ recycling.

Star Trek 2009 was great, the casting was perfect, the story was new and exciting but the next two were thoroughly unmemorable.

Gary 8.5

your description sounds an awful lot like TNG. I want something new.

Dlope67

I would be happy to let the Kelvin timeline ride off into the sunset. Much like Abrams Star Wars Trilogy, his Star Trek series had it’s pluses and minuses, it had a fun but overly simplistic 1st act, a horrifically bad middle act and a redeemable 3rd act that wasn’t enough to make anyone really feel all that great about it. His strengths seem to be great casting, good feel for character, but trite and repetitive stories filled with convenient plot elements and holes. (i know he didn’t write and direct all of it, but he set it all in motion).

To Noah Hawley’s point, I’m looking forward to a story that involves thinking and dramatic tension, not populating a scene with 1000 Star Destroyers to oversell the drama. I remember when one Star Destroyer was an intimidating visual threat.

I’m looking forward to whatever Noah Hawley comes up with.