Noah Hawley Confirms Star Trek Film Would Feature New Crew, Project Currently In “Stasis”

Information regarding Noah Hawley’s Star Trek feature film has been hard to come by. The project was announced last fall with very few details and was then seemingly put on hold in August, with rumors that the film’s plot hewed a bit too close to our current pandemic reality. Today we learned a bit more about what Hawley has in mind, and how his approach to his current TV series, Fargo, could inform his approach to Star Trek.

Hawley Trek is not about Kirk or Picard

In a new interview with Variety, Hawley talks about his upcoming season of Fargo as well as other projects, including the Star Trek film for Paramount. The writer/director confirms that Paramount’s new head of feature films, Emma Watts, told him his film was “on hold.” However, the project was further along in its development than previously thought. According to Hawley, the script is finished and he was beginning to hire designers to help him conceptualize the film’s look.

Hawley also confirmed that the film would feature “a new crew of characters” but would connect to franchise history, drawing a comparison to how his Fargo television series is tied to the 1996 film of the same name:

We’re not doing Kirk and we’re not doing Picard. It’s a start from scratch that then allows us to do what we did with Fargo, where for the first three hours you go, ‘Oh, it really has nothing to do with the movie,’ and then you find the money. So you reward the audience with a thing that they love.

Hawley is referring to a scene in the first season of his Fargo series when Oliver Platt’s Stavros Milos finds money buried in the snow by Steve Buscemi’s Carl Showalter in the original Coen brothers film.

Project in stasis

Hawley also tells Variety that his Trek project is still alive at Paramount, but “in stasis.” Previously it was reported that Emma Watts was now leaning towards reviving the Star Trek 4 project that would bring back Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk to team up with his son James T. Kirk (Chris Pine). That sequel to 2016’s Star Trek Beyond was put on hold in 2018 after a salary dispute with Hemsworth and Pine, but it’s possible those issues could be resolved under the new management at the studio. Earlier this spring, Pine said he hoped to get back to work on Star Trek after things settled down at Paramount.

Previous reporting has stated that Paramount’s Watts has made Star Trek a priority at the studio. According to today’s Variety, the series of false starts for a new Trek feature film in the last few years is a “source of embarrassment” for the studio while corporate sibling CBS “has, under executive producer Alex Kurtzman, established a bona fide universe of series on the television front.”


Keep up with all the news on Star Trek 4 and upcoming Trek films at TrekMovie.com.

122 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Is it just me, or does  Noah Hawley look like Simon Pegg? He could appear in the film as Scotty’s brother.

Lol yeah you’re right. Now I can’t unsee that.

LOL

But Scotty will not be in his film

Wow, dude. Wow.

Last edited 2 months ago by His Name Is Rios

Lol great shout!

Yes, they do look alike very much 👍

That’s obviously how it ties in. We think its a completely new crew, but it turns out its Scotty’s brother or something lame like that.

yep, looks like Simon Pegg

I’m all for in-universe but different characters, as long as its not too visually slavish to what we’ve seen before.

Good point, hopefully he has a descent plan for this film so it doesn’t sink upon arrival.

He has a descent plan? That’s a relief–I’d hate to think he was going to crash.

LOL! Is there a limit to your wit Rios?

Last edited 2 months ago by Silvereyes

There is not.

Rios, I’m just going to say it, but sometimes your posts come off a bit mean at times. Maybe you don’t mean for them to read that way but the way you respond to others here is a bit harsh. At least when I read them.

My genuine apologies if that’s the case. Nine times out of time, I’m just being snarky.

The other one time out of ten?

I’m being a dick.

OK no worries, we all read tone differently online. I don’t think you MEAN to be, I just read a lot of them that way. So its me, not you….9 out of 10 anyway.. ;)

I see you are not Herbert. I reach.

Rios, your answer just proves that you are not a dick.

There is no plan, the project is dead stick. Crashed on take off.

Last edited 2 months ago by Phil

His film is an original story with a new crew, that’s good.

Currently in ‘”stasis” doesn’t sound good.

It’s unprecedented for the feature film side of ST.

Ordinarily I’d think some kind of transition film was required, in addition to the film franchise already being in good health. Both those conditions would be hard to meet. (And unfortunately the latter condition being met typically results in a studio tendency to do more of the same.)

But I would bet on Hawley’s film as being the most viable possibility based on what we’ve heard. It sounds like fans in general want a non-Kelvin, completely original cast movie anyway, here’s your chance to get one.

The Chris Hemsworth movie has been sitting face-down on a table for four years, and both Paramount’s and the two Chris’ prior reactions to it suggest a lack of enthusiasm all around, in addition to the screenwriters having almost nothing else on their resume. I don’t see how they’re suddenly supposed to get this one made anyway.

It’s not unprecedented at all. There have been MANY Star Trek film projects that were stalled indefinitely, going back to the ’70s. This is a fairly common occurrence.

I was not referring to the movie being in stasis.

“Stasis” sounds good to me

Last edited 2 months ago by Mike Thompson UK

“Was” an original story. Now, it’s just a file in a cabinet in an office somewhere on the Paramount lot.

Phil, you speak as if you had some authoritative insight into the Star Trek film development process, but that seems unlikely. Hawley does not think that his project is dead. Presumably he knows more about the status of his own project than you do.

No, I speak as someone with basic reading comprehension skills. Since STB premiered, all the sequel happy talk has had not so much as a shred of evidence presented that would suggest any work on any production has begun. So far, I’ve not been wrong, and will apologize profusely if BR made a movie that’s completely flown under the radar.

You make certain statements as if you have insider knowledge. You do not.

True. Maybe Paramount shreds their dead project files. Or stores their dead dead dead project files at a off site facility somewhere in Arizona. Gotta do something with those DEAD PROJECT files. They take up space.

Last edited 2 months ago by Phil

I’d much rather them continue with the terrific Enterprise-crew cast with a new story and script. The Hemsworth/Kirk’s daddy issues script really didn’t sound great. I think they’ve thoroughly explored Kirk’s daddy issues across the 3 Kelvinverse movies

The Hemsworth/Kirk’s daddy idea stunk up the place when it was first suggested a couple of years ago. Hollywood seems completely INCAPABLE of original thought! Dump the current MEDIOCRE “talent” and get fresh ideas! Sheesh! It ain’t rocket science!

A fresh story with the Kelvin crew

Harry, that is the problem with most places more driven by incestuous ideological purity than true meritocracy. It’s worse than the Borg – they dont even assimilate outsiders and add their distinctiveness to their own – they cancel them and only admit those already having the very same thought processes to their sacred grounds (never mind the skin color). That never ended well in history.

Last edited 2 months ago by Vulcan Soul

Vulcan Soul, many years ago Hollywood was described as a town where Art meets Commerce. Too bad Art left town a LONG time ago.

Its almost as if the first 2 never happened. Because there were no repercussions to the whole Khan storyline or Kirk starting a war with the Klingons. Star Trek Beyond acted as if Into Darkness never happened.

“Star Trek Beyond acted as if Into Darkness never happened.”

That’s probably why I like Beyond so much. I, too, wish Into Darkness had never happened.

Ditto

Me three!

He’s a very good storyteller. It will probably be a good movie if we ever get to see it.

No movie is happening for many many years. All of the current writers and story concepts will be gone by then.

Not true at all.

I will at least say they are not in a rush to make another movie, that’s clear. When a studio really wants to make a movie, they just do it. Look at the MCU, they green light movies years away without a script or a director and been doing that since 2013. And 90% of them gets made and premiere on those dates. Because they know they can make a movie with monkeys in it and as long as they have them in a costume on its going to make a half a billion minimum. When you have that kind of confidence in your fanbase and reputation of your product its easy to make as many as possible.

Sadly the Star Trek films have nothing close to that kind of confidence. Paramount really don’t seem to know what KIND of movie they want to make, much less when it will get made. We may not see another film for at least 3-5 years at the rate things are going.

At least three years. In the post Covid world, it’ll take someone willing to step up and make one for less then 100MM. That’s not happening anytime soon.

Don’t want to start from scratch, spending the whole movie building it up, had that with Star Trek 09

Then its wait until Star Trek 5

It does sound interesting to me. I’m not married to any specific crew myself. And I like the idea of something new that also connects to what we know. So I think this sounds promising.

Too bad we may never see a finished product.

would rather they go for Tarantino script.. As to what it could be about – from what he said in that podcast video he did a few years ago it sounds like hed do a big screen version of City on the Edge of Forever meets Yesterdays Enterprise (this is sort of collaborated by the recent info that his movie would be set in the 30s and feature gangsters which the article and then the internet/fandom mistook as meaning itd be a remake of Piece of the Action – which was actually ‘set’ in the 1920s.. its City on the Edge that was set in the 30s)

so maybe it would open with the JJ Enterprise in the middle of battling the romulans (Tim Roth as the Romulan commander) who are attacking a klingon outpost (as in Yesterdays Enterprise) lots of the crew dead ship about to be destroyed when they get thrown back in time to the 30s and we get something of a remake of the City on the Edge with Edith Keller (Margot Robbie) .. Kirk falls in love etc as whats left of the crew try to repair the ship so they can get back to the future (a’la Star Trek IV)..and along the way they encounter various characters (alien or human) played by the QT regulars: SLJ, Kurt Russell, Waltz, Madsen etc

of course I doubt itd be as straight forward as that.. and I recall Karl Urbans made some comments about the script being ‘nuts/bananas’ (he said something similar about Orci’s ST3 back in 2014) so along with that QT interview about his wanting to do big screen version of City on the Edge and Yesterdays Enterprise and his love of Shatner – to me infers its also probably going to involve the JJ cast crossing into the Primeverse and encountering the older ‘prime’ movie versions of TOS characters (via CGI) and/or TNG in an epic Yesterdays Enterprise/Days of Future Past/Bring Back Kirk type story – ‘Star Trek:Endgame’ (that ‘normal’ film goers would check out as well as QT would make it an event) 

Last edited 2 months ago by flaming photon torpedo of truth

No, no, no. Tarantino’s project sounded awful–and whenever he discussed the project, it became clear just how little he knew of Star Trek history.

This we agree on fully.

I was very excited about Tarantino directing a Star Trek film….until he started talking about it. And then my interest died completely. He doesn’t sound like a Star Trek fan outside of seeing a few TOS and TNG episodes. And that’s fine, but if you can’t even understand how the universe works in it, then please stay far away from it.

I’m so glad he walked away.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

Yep. That’s it exactly. Heck, he even seemed confused by the fact that the Abrams crew were in another universe.

That concept is even more dead then this one. QT has already moved on.

Anything is better than them trying to do a Disney Star Wars esque or MCU style Star Trek 4 that loses them hundreds of millions of dollars. The one with Hemsworth as Kirk Sr. I cannot believe they wasted 4 years on that instead of jettisoning it and starting over.

Actually, Tarantino described his take as an expanded version of Yesterdays Enterprise, nowhere has he said it would be like City On The Edge Of Forever, nor Piece Of The Action. But I agree Tarantino’s desire to make a good ST movie could have fabulous results (might be a bit violent for some fans though). Don’t get upset, but CBS/Paramount (name was changed back to Paramount yesterday), has already hired script writers to assist Tarantino in preparing the screen adaptation, and they’ve been working on it for months. Only sticking point is Pine’s salary.

Last edited 2 months ago by Andy

Unless you have additional information it seems to me that you are mixing up what the status of the various Trek movie projects is.
The movie pitch about Kirk’s dad (Hemsworth) returning failed due to salary disputes. They had already hired a director for that who moved on when the project stalled.
Paramount did indeed hire a writer to develop Tarantino’s pitch into a script. That was years ago. From all accounts, Tarantino seems to have moved on, and Paramount doesn’t seem to actively pursue this option.
The third pitch was by Noah Hawley which this article is about.
Based on recent interviews Paramount seems to be most interested in reviving the Kirk’s dad idea. However, it’s unclear if the salary issue is solved.

Hmm, I haven’t seen that podcast video, so I don’t know how much of what you wrote is based off of “real stuff” or how much is just your speculation, but I am in no way interested in seeing a movie like that. If it is all just a rehash of older plot lines, why do it? Why not something new? I have to agree with these other posters, if that is Tarantino’s idea of Star Trek, then he really missed the boat.

It sounds lame, sincerely.

I’m very surprised by the number of posters who skewer Secret Hideout for insufficient reverence of canon, who on the other hand sound all-in for a Tarantino film when it’s clear that he has no concept of the fundamentals of the Trek multiverse.

Last thought: what happened to the scoop/rumours that the new VP at Paramount was putting things on hold to ensure a coherent brand between the movie and television sides of the house?

Letting Tarantino do his own thing, as an auteur who only knows and understands a small part of the franchise, sounds completely off-strategy.

Last edited 2 months ago by TG47

The question remains is this: will Star Trek XIV take place in the prime timeline or the Kelvin timeline?

Actually, that isn’t a question at all, now. The next feature, if it happens, will be a one off. It may have the aesthetic of one, other, or a combination of, or none of the the artistic vision of previous Trek incarnations, it will just be identifiable as A Trek universe. The timelines will be irrelevant as we are likely several years away from a big screen feature. If one happens at all.

Sure it’s a question. There’s a question mark.

Last edited 2 months ago by His Name Is Rios

Phil, that’s all total speculation on your part. We don’t know any of that. DonDonP1 posed a real question because most likely it will be either one of the two. Or yes it could be in a completely new universe but we don’t know. I would personally like to see the Kelvin universe expanded with new characters. They can even do a time jump to the 24th century or beyond.

But all we know was he planned to use new characters and that alone doesn’t rule out prime or Kelvin obviously.

Wow, actually new group of characters we never heard of before for the films, someone is finally thinking outside the box with these movies. That excite me more than anything else. And honestly out the three scripts we know of, this one probably interest me the most. I never cared about having Kirk’s dad back even if it could still be a great film, but meh. Really hate the Tarantino idea…a lot. We wait five years for another movie just to see a rehash of a TOS episode. No thanks. It worked for TWOK, but that was a sequel at least. His idea just sounds like a retelling of A Piece of the Action with the Kelvin crew. This was literally what I was afraid of the type of stories we would get when it was announced they were rebooting TOS on the big screen.

I just want ORIGINALITY with these films, especially when you only have one every few years. It’s why STID didn’t ignite the fanbase. At least Hawley sound like he was trying to take Star Trek in a new direction with new characters. Who knows if it would be good or not but it excites me as a fan.

And I think its another sign Paramount is moving on from the Kelvin cast. They say they are looking into doing the Hemsworth movie again but I seriously doubt it. If they do it, fine, but my guess is they probably are moving on with a new cast at this point. It’s already going on five years since Beyond came out and bombed, I just don’t see any real excitement with those movies at this point or they would’ve just paid them whatever they promised and just made the thing by now.

But I would like to see at least one more with the cast, just not holding my breath anymore. Especially since the Hawley film made clear they are ready to move on without them.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

I agree mostly with you Tiger2.

One thing’s nagging in my backbrain though, this reported sense that the cinematic feature side if Paramount is in some way in competition with the television side is disquieting.

What’s novel about Hawley’s proposal is that it’s a standalone story in the Trek universe, but not rooted in the television series directly. It gets back to the experimental anthology concept, but with the kind of budget that could make it viable.

Honestly, if the cinematic side of Paramount wants to show leadership and innovation in the Trek universe, it’s going to need to be something like this, not just a reboot under the plausible guise of an alternate universe.

I agree, I think that would be the way to go and do something actual original and innovative with it. I don’t know if it would be a one off though because studios don’t seem to think that way anymore, especially with their franchises. I mean maybe for Hawley he would just do one movie but if its really successful my guess is they would still try to retain the cast for this one in the next one.

But sure as a fan I would love the idea they can just make different movies with different settings and casts, like how Discovery was originally meant to be done. And they can set them in a different universe entirely. But not holding my breath either.

And I think when you hire someone like Hawley and you seen what he has done with stuff like Fargo and X-Men, he really puts his own unique stamp on it. Maybe its TOO unique for people lol but why I think people got excited when he was writing this movie and much more interesting to me than Tarantino making a Star Trek movie. IMO only of course.

Not interested in another reboot which is what Hawley’s film would be. I personally would not invest my time or money to go see it. Are they (Paramount) going to keep rebooting until they find a cast that that all of the fans like. I don’t think that is possible. Why not put more effort in a good script and keep the known cast. May I also remind everyone that Hawley’s movie attempt Lucy in the Sky bombed at the box office and only received a Rotton Tomatoes rating in the 20s. Doesn’t sound like a writer or directer that I would want to take a chance on with the franchise. Let him have a movie success before you let him touch Star Trek. The Star Trek movies have never been about completely new characters. All of the characters have been previously introduced via a television series and if my memory is correct none of the television series were an immediate success. You had to get to know the characters so by the time the movies were made you knew who they were and what kind of person they were portraying. By completely introducing a new cast and set of characters I think you would lose that unique bond that exists between Star Trek and its fans.

Well I just disagree.

For starters, they probably just want a new cast because they just want to make a much cheaper film. My guess is everyone in the old cast makes at least 7 figures and they want to find a way to lower the cost and yes starting fresh with new actors lower things greatly.

Remember the only reason why we didn’t get the fourth film is because Chris Pine walked away. So its not like they didn’t try. But if the main star doesn’t want to do it for a lower price it’s going to cause an issue. And yes they can recast him but I guess they figure it would be too distracting for some fans and to accept a new Kirk, so they didn’t bother.

And I’m not blaming Pine. From everything we heard Pine was only asking for the money his contract promised but they low balled him so he walked. That’s completely understandable. But if he won’t do it for a lower price and they won’t make another movie unless they get it under a certain budget, here we are.

And just because they are making a movie with new characters doesn’t mean it won’t be successful. Yes you’re right, all Trek movies have used known characters and usually actors before. But just because they haven’t TRIED to do it another way doesn’t mean it won’t be successful. This is Star Trek. I remember hearing you couldn’t even MAKE a new show without Kirk, Spock and Bones 30 years ago. You couldn’t make a show without a starship. There was a time just using new actors to portray the TOS characters was considered a no-no. But guess what, most of the time the franchise went on just fine. Now I’m not saying its going to be a guarantee hit either but you should at just TRY first instead of this notion Trek movie can only succeed if you already know the characters. If that was always the attitude we wouldn’t have gotten TNG to begin with. Maybe it will fail but we won’t know until someone at least tries it first.

But it will be nice to FINALLY see the movies taking real chances like the shows do.

And finally, the reality is if the Kelvin movies just did better in general we wouldn’t be talking about a new cast today. Simon Peg said it when he started writing Beyond, Paramount wanted these movies to do as well as the MCU films and as we know that never happened. They have sunk a LOT of money into these movies and they never made more than a marginal profit. For all the hype the first movie got, it still just barely made a profit at the B.O. STID made the most money out of any Trek film ever, but it was also one of the most costliest films Paramount has ever made at the time and it was reported it only made $30 million profit at the B.O. Who knows how much that is true, but if a $200 million movie can’t even make a half a billion today,its probably not worth it. Compare that to Transformers 4 which cost the same as STID did and made a billion dollars. That’s the results studios want to see with these size budgets. We know how badly Beyond did and that was probably the beginning of the end.

So that’s the real issue, the movies just never made what Paramount hoped, the last one basically bombed and the studio is just looking to go another direction. And yes the cast is just getting older as well. It’s already been 11 years since the first film. That’s already a long time. Just to compare that, the TOS cast spent 12 years making 6 films. The TNG cast spent 8 years making 4. It’s crazy the Kelvin cast will be around the longest in terms of the films and yet only have 3 films under their belts. It’s amazing how much these movies have been squandered.

And I’m sure they would love to just pick a TV cast and give them a movie like TOS and TNG. But since no new show has been on the air that long and the new shows probably haven’t shown nearly the potential TNG did in its run because it is still early, they just don’t have a choice.

Paramount sooner or later are going to have to rethink their strategy with this franchise in the long term and it looks like its sooner.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

I’d have a movie or two called “King” which would be set in current times and in a far flung place. It would follow a prince’s education by a father figure to lead the people of the world to a glorious future. The prince would be sheltered and told he was special and it was his destiny.

Eventually, there is a coup and the prince has to flee, build an army and retake his kingdom. For as long as possible in the film, the prince’s abilities, strength and intelligence are kept from the audience… perhaps until he and his army are defeated and commandeer a space ship and get put into stasis. Then the audience realises it’s a Star Trek story on Khan.

I write all this and it may very well be a rubbish idea, won’t ever see the light of day and Khan’s been done recently, but meh I’m at a loose end haha.

That would not be consistent with Khan’s established story at all, so… no.

This movie will never see the light of day.

Almost no one wants to see PineKirk meet his dead dad Thor, just like almost no one is overly curious about Alex Kurtzman’s take on Section 31.

If they must ride the Pine one more time, once again I am offering my stellar idea for a loose remake of Trek IV: Whalehunt. It will be a light-hearted romp addressing the weighty issue of climate change, which will help critics overrate it. Climate change made some critter go extinct, and PineCrew must travel back in time to fetch it, bring it back, and use it to stop the rude and mindless alien probe. But to time-travel, crew will use Guardian of Forever, so the movie will also incorporate elements of Edge of Forever, for fan service.

The temporal setting of the movie should be Earth present day, so the big choice is what kind of extinct critter- change it up from whales- maybe dolphins if you want to go aquatic. Land animals, like a monkey or wild pig, open up more opportunities for interacting with the crew and providing hilarious and/or thrilling chase sequences. The geo setting of the film- maybe make it a globe-hopping adventure- and yes, there has to be a sexy contemporary lady scientist aiding in this quest. Business is business. Introduce some other contemporary characters, for comedic relief, probably some young Youtube or TikTok star, or Triller… Triller is a rising platform I am hearing.

Yes, this sounds bad, but it will likely be better than whatever PineQuest they come up with.

Guardian of Forever unites most of PineCrew with TakeiSulu for comedic relief. It’s comedy gold i tell ya

Don’t forget CGI Kirk/Shatner, Picard and Riker. Hell, the salary cap would only be $200 mill(😉)

What, now that Harlan Ellison’s wife has died unexpectedly, the vultures swoop in once more to try to pick the bones from his CITY work?

Star Trek: Stasis. Better than no title at all.

That really does say it all. The film industry seems to be basically be on a let’s wait and see pattern for at least a year.

Best left in stasis!

It seems too late to bring back the Kelvin crew at this point, although I certainly wouldn’t mind either approach. I would rather see a new story, visually and creatively.

Loose translation: Stasis = dead.

I think I’d rather see his vision of Star Trek instead of another Abramsverse movie.

Oh what I would give to read that Hawley script!

‘New crew of characters?’ While this may sound good, you’re going to spend the first 30 minutes at least getting introduced to this crew and the look of it all before you get into the story.

For those ‘pining’ (haha) about lower cost movies, this would be it. New crew means new cast means new lower cast salaries. $100-$130M total. If we’re talking a new look, that means starting with new sets from scratch..more $.

The movie’s pandemic theme too close to reality? Thats what Trek stories do. They have a contemporaneous flavor to it. I think thats what the Kelvin timeline Trek movies missed. After the first movie, which was our intro to the new crew and its universe, they wasted the second movie on a Khan remake. The third movie plays out the characters as seasoned veterans. Its like the TOS movies going from TMP, to TWOK to TUC. There should have been more character growth with the Kelvin crew. And why must every Trek movie have have THE BIG VILLAIN who is bent on revenge or somehow threatening earth? Why not two villains? Three? Something different.

Not different at all.. Some ST movies had a subplot with a different villain making 2 villains at least (Generations: Lursa/Bator, Khan: Lord Kruge).

Kruge was the opponent in Star Trek III, not Star Trek II (Khan). Genesis was indeed slightly different in that it basically had an A plot with Soran and a B plot with Lursa and B’Etor although both were linked. Depending on your point of view you could either say Lursa and B’Etor were henchwomen to Soran; or Lursa and B’Etor basically used Soran’s help to get their revenge on the Enterprise crew (so he was their henchman).

“Star Trek” movies “The Motion Picture” through “The Undiscovered Country” (and even “Of Gods and Men”): Movies that film audiences were interested in seeing because they provided new adventures of familiar TV characters they love.

“Star Trek” movies “Generations” through “Nemesis”: Movies that film audiences were interested in seeing because they provided new adventures of another group of familiar TV characters they love.

“Star Trek” movies “Star Trek” through “Star Trek Beyond”: Movies that film audiences were interested in seeing because they provided new adventures of familiar TV characters they love.

None of that suggests people won’t see a new movie because it has new characters either though. It’s done all the time on the TV shows, Discovery and Lower Decks the latest, and in fact seems to be successful with most iterations. I don’t know why it would be so different for a movie.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

I think it is different for television than for movies in that the time frame is different. If there is a character people don’t like or a plot that people don’t like get rid of the character or change the plot. It would be a lot easier to accomplish this in the time format of a series than of a 2 hour movie without causing major problems. As I stated previously I just don’t think that making a space movie with new cast and characters and sticking the title of Star Trek on it will achieve the success that Paramount is hoping to have with its next movie.

I agree there is definitely a difference between the two, but plenty of people go to watch movies with new characters all the time. Rogue One made a billion dollars and all the characters were new minus the five minute Darth Vader cameo. Of course it’s Star Wars so not a shock lol but I’m also making the point it’s really the brand itself that brings people to watch movies these days. Its why the MCU can introduce once C level comic book characters and still make a half a billion dollars with them. Whoever thought something like Guardians of the Galaxy could make more money than Superman or Batman movies? And yet it happened.

So I don’t buy audiences won’t go see a Star Trek movie because it has new characters in it because end of the day Star Trek the brand itself has become more important than any one character or show. But yes that said, I have no doubt it’s riskier obviously. I’m not pretending it would be an instant hit. But there is NOTHING to suggest it will be an instant failure either since clearly enough people watch all the various shows with new characters all the time. How much that translate to the big screen will just depend on how good the film itself is and how much hype it brings as a movie event. And if they put in a big enough star then people will go out of curiosity who may not have went before.

And the reality is if the Kelvin actors just don’t want to come back due to time, money (like Pine), or just moved on, then what? None of them are on contract anymore, so its even harder now. They can always reboot it with more TOS characters and a new cast but I really hope they think a bit more out of the box.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

Movies in general (that are not sequels or re-imaginings) introduce new characters all the time. Star Trek just hasn’t tried doing a movie with a crew that hadn’t been introduced on a TV show before. If other movies can do it you would expect that Star Trek should be able to do it as well.

Sooo no Trek movies coming anytime soon, makes sense. Did anyone catch that Star Trek First Frontier film that was released recently? I saw it on YouTube, didn’t watch it but the comments were glowing

I LOVED it. But if you watch it, be prepared for some poor sound mix wuality).

Yes. The Sound. WTF. I tried. I fell asleep. I was all set to like it. Those monsters and their eyes!

Perhaps Lt. M’Ress or other animated Star Fleet characters could be brought into the story line?

Maybe a half Romulan
son that Spock was not aware of defecting to Star Fleet to meet his Dad (I always liked the Enterprise incidents) TOS…

🖖

This concept sounds like an unmitigated disaster, a radioactive nail in the Kelvin coffin. Why would anyone in their right mind think you could open a Star Trek film with an unknown crew with an obtuse angle on (what we can assume is a TOS episode). What TOS contagion episodes am I missing here
:

  • Naked Now (inhibition virus)
  • Operation Annihilate (flying pancakes, Jim Kirk’s brother)
  • The Deadly Years (rapid aging)

Maybe I’m wrong, but that sounds like a slog.

New crew. No thanks. Bring the Kelvin cast back. They are fantastic.

I honestly don’t know why they could’nt just figure out what the audience for Star Trek was and scale back the budget to make a film profitable. No more making 300 million dollar Bad Robot spectacles. The last film probably didn’t break even. Unlike the JJ movies. That means not trying to do Disney Star Wars levels of excess, or Fast and the Furious in Space. I liked Beyond but Paramount wanted it to make a billion dollars like the Fast films. It was a loser money wise for them all around.

**it’s nice to know they’re embarrassed by the mess they’ve created… the first step in cleaning up a mess is knowing it’s there

i’ve heard so much about the kirk/father one and even the tarantino one that i’m kind of sick of them all at this point… is it just me? it’s exhausting

the hawley one with an all new cast of characters feels better suited as a lower budgeted tv/streaming movie or something like that… not as a major studio release as part of the franchise but i’m all for spinoffs…

or just give hawley a series

But why? All we know is it’s new characters, it could still be a big budget film, just lesser than the Kelvin movies maybe. And they can always hire a big A-lister actor in the main role and smaller actors in the others if they want to draw an audience, ala Tom Cruis in the MI films (but NOT Tom Cruise ;))

Last edited 2 months ago by Tiger2

I might actually watch a new M:I movie if it was done w/o Cruise. I’ve always been big on spy movies, which is why I am always hungry for a good one (except for TINKER TAILOR, I think the last one I enjoyed was TAILOR OF PANAMA, where Brosnan got to show how he COULD have made Bond much darker if he’d had scripts and direction.) Over 30 years since I loved a Bond movie now, and FROM RUSSIA still tops my list, with Timothy Dalton’s films coming in somewhat below that level of perfection.

Feeling much the same way kmart.

The “wrong” big star dominating a franchise or a movie is as much of a turn off as an appeal.

I managed to get through two MI movies with Tom Cruise, but was wishing it wasn’t him in the starring role the whole time.

When my spouse and I realized that the MI movies were not going to be about an ensemble unlike the original television series, there wasn’t much to interest us. So we don’t watch them.

Paramount and CBS really seem stuck, both conceptually and contractually to the “first on the call sheet gets to drive every plot point” approach. It sucks if the star who is in your face all the time isn’t someone that you want to watch.

I won’t lie, I LOVE Tom Cruise. I’ve seen pretty much every film he’s made in the theater since the 90s. And I love the MI movies a lot. I watched every single one of them in the theater at least twice, with the exception of MI 2 because it sucked. But I really love the MI franchise a lot.

And clearly so do the audience. The MI movies is one of the few franchises that has made more money the older it’s gotten and they been around for nearly 25 years now. You know how confident the studio are with these movies when they made a deal to shoot 7 and 8 back to back. Meanwhile they won’t even green light the next Trek movie although they now have 3 scripts ready to go.

But I know not everyone likes Tom Cruise. I get it, but I always been a big fan. of his, the MI movies especially.

I like most of the Bond films too. I been mixed on the Daniel Craig movies but I am excited for the next one…..whenever it comes out. ;)

I agree. Give it to somebody new to the franchise, like Hawley, instead of tossing it to the same old guys who dug a bigger hole for the franchise with JJ and Kurtzman and company, the proverbial gang that couldn’t shoot (Star Trek) straight. Hawley couldn’t do any worse! A much smaller budget and a new cast is what I’ve said for years is the key… Well under $100 mil for starters, lots of new faces, and maybe one powerful guest villain. It worked for TWOK, after all!

Yes Hawley could do worse. As previously mentioned, his movie attempt, Lucy in the Sky bombed at the box office and only received a Rotten Tomatoes rating of approx. 28%. At least none of the Kelvin movies did THAT bad either in earnings or Rotten Tomatoes scores. Use the same cast and characters but eliminate some of the visual effects and make the movie more about the characters rather than how good but not always necessary special effects are to the plot of the movie.

Here’s a case where the two of us are feeling much the same way tom riker.

I’ve lost interest, scant that it was, in the Kelvin universe or Tarantino projects. “Sick of them” fairly sums it up.

More, because I don’t have any hope that my spouse or kids would watch them with me, they would have to be super appealing to get me to see them in theaters.

Our kids have tried the first Kelvin movie, but have flatly refused to see more. Meanwhile, Voyager, TNG and TOS are being viewed daily, and at least one of them watches the new shows with me within a week of release (although I need to prewatch since they have over 14 content).

So, it’s hard to get excited about something that no one in my family will share with me.

I would like a Cinema only Crew :)

Could we finally have a movie where there isn’t a villain going crazy, possessing a super-weapon? What happened to the exploration of space?

That would be nice.

Why stop after thirteen movies?

Movies 1 and 4 didn’t have a villain going crazy. And before Nemesis not all movies dealt with a bad portraied villain seeking revenge. Why can’t we get that back?

Really? V’ger inflicting carnage across the galaxy? Alien whale probe that literally shut down all of Starfleet’s defenses? Every Trek movie has had some existential threat that our intrepid band of explorers had to overcome. Not all those threats were dispatched with a loaded phaser bank, that’s the only difference.

 Every Trek movie has had some existential threat that our intrepid band of explorers had to overcome. Not all those threats were dispatched with a loaded phaser bank, that’s the only difference.

And why can’t we have a movie again in that style with that “only difference”? instead of one-dimensional villains who are seeking revenge for reasons which make no sense? Basically the last 4 movies dealt with such characters and while Nero had a reason (even if he was wrong) and Khan was not that bad, especially Shinzon and Krall made no sense.
Why not have such a threat which evolves solving a mystery and space exploration? Stunning visuals like in ST1?

Last edited 2 months ago by DaveCGN

What’s wrong with u guys not keeping up with the internet lately. Chris Pine said he’s all in for the next Trek movie a couple of weeks ago.

There are a couple of absolutes I’ve come to realize about Hollywood: 1) Movie executives Love to lose crap-tons of cash to delusional script writers; and 2) Hollywood executives are suckers that haven’t had an original idea since the 70’s. A New Star Trek film with an entirely New Crew would tank faster than Josh Trank’s Fan4stic Four and will earn less than the total box office payout for Fred Durst’s John Travolta film (if you can call it a film) “The Fanatic”.

It’s thinking like this that keeps the remake machine churning.

Not sure how I feel about this. Quite honestly I would rather see Pine, Quinto, Pegg and crew do a final movie. It seemed as if with Beyond we were finally getting to the characters we know.

The problem is that they probably want a more lower budget film after Beyond and can’t afford to bring them all back for what they were paying them or at least promised to pay them.

Paramount isn’t going to spend a hundred million bucks launching a new film franchise with unknown characters even if it’s the science fiction equivalent of Ghandi (and since this is Noah Hawley we are talking about, it very well could be). Until and unless Noah rewrites his movie with established characters (if not the originating actors themselves), I don’t see how this will ever come “out of stasis“. Hollywood is completely snakebit when it comes to anything even sniffing faintly of an original idea these days.

And I would love to be proved wrong.

Last edited 2 months ago by Scott Gammans

I’m more into the idea of this film than before after reading the above. Hope we get to see it either on the big screen or as a TV limited series in the future! I also just recently finished Collateral on Netflix in the US and I’m a little bummed we will never see an SJ Clarkson-directed Trek movie. Loved her style in the Netflix series.

.. well, ironically the “pandemic” is over with the vaccine being issued next month and other countries having it..perhaps the production can resume

There’s no vaccine being issued next month that passes muster, and that’s irrelevant to the fact that there’s no paused production in existance that can be resumed.

Yes I listen to the scientists who say we are still months away at minimum from a vaccine and most won’t get it until a year from now anyway. Not the lying disgraceful reality show President who just makes things up (literally) as he goes.

Like to see Star Trek get going again. Real Star Trek. But if Ms. Watts, or anyone else in charge still think there is anything “bona fide” about the pure crap Kurtzman has been attaching the Star Trek name to, then Trek fans are still in trouble.

Hawley’s film idea does sound like it has potential…..
Let’s get a little visually slavish to what came before, if it means actually recapturing the actual look of the proper Trek universe, and reconnecting to the original continuity…..
Lord in heaven, PLEASE no more shitty “reboots” and “reimaginins”. And let STD, Picard, and Lower Drek RIP already!