Noah Hawley Wants To Make A Star Trek Movie That Isn’t All About Action

As Noah Hawley has been out promoting the new season of Fargo, he continues to drop more hints about his Star Trek movie, which was put on pause after Paramount brought in a new person to head up motion pictures. The latest hints draw a distinction between his vision of Star Trek and the recent Kelvin movies.

Hawley likes smart Star Trek

Speaking to the Observer, Noah Hawley described what he loved about Star Trek and the movies:

“What I love about Star Trek is that it’s not a war story. It’s not a story in which might makes right. It’s a story about exploration. It’s a story about creative problem solving. My favorite moment in all of Star Trek is in Wrath of Khan when Kirk puts on his reading glasses to lower Khan’s shields. It’s a brief moment that is so exhilarating because he’s using the best tool he has, which is his mind.”

The writer/director  then went on to draw a comparison of his project to the three recent Kelvin-verse Star Trek movies:

“As much as I like the Chris Pine movies they were mostly about running from one end of the ship to the other to put out a fire, to stop a thing, and then before he could catch his breath he had to do something else. They’re much more action movies and what I wanted to get back to was this idea of humanity justifying existence in the universe by showing its best qualities.”

William Shatner as James T. Kirk in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Before Emma Watts was brought in by Paramount and put the project on pause (but still “alive” according to Hawley), he had finished a script and started to hire designers. Recently Hawley also confirmed his Trek film would “start from scratch” with “a new crew of characters.” He hasn’t given away any plot details except to say it would deal with the ideals of the Federation being challenged and it “needs to be saved.”

The latest reporting confirms that Paramount is still developing Star Trek films with bringing the franchise back to the big screen being a “priority” of new executive Emma Watts. In addition to the Hawley project, she is also considering the pitch from Quentin Tarantino and the Star Trek 4 project that brings back Chris Hemsworth (which is reported to be the current front-runner).

But even if Paramount moves forward with the Star Trek Beyond sequel with Hemsworth, which will likely be another action-packed tentpole project, they may also follow that up with other films that may not be directly tied into the Kelvin film. Both the Tarantino and Hawley projects sound to be different takes and likely lower budget approaches without the demands a big tentpole has on the studio.

It has been four years and two months since the last Star Trek film was released. The longest gap between Trek feature films was the six years and five months between Nemesis and J.J. Abrams Star Trek. At this point, it looks like the next film will break that record.

Chris Pine as James T. Kirk in Star Trek Beyond


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

Subscribe
Notify me of
289 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

FINALLY! Good story over mindless action works every time!

Hear, hear, Harry. Hear, hear.

Agreed. I hope his project moves forward.

As do I. I hope it gets made.

Agree. Unfortunately, in todays market for moviegoing? Most likely, it will fail to make a profit. I’d pay $30.00 to watch it home on my personal home theatre. I don’t think many movie goers would be excited to go to a local cineplex for a cerebral Trek film, as much as I would want to see such film.

‘interstellar’, ‘the martian:, ‘gravity’,….

Gravity was non-stop mindless action. There was absolutely nothing cerebral about it.
Even Interstellar had to throw in that ridiculous fight scene with Matt Damon.

Last edited 1 month ago by Thorny

So if there wasn’t a 90 second fight seen with Matt Damon it would have bombed? I mean I don’t think anybody is suggesting that a more cerebral Trek movie should have zero action!

Last edited 1 month ago by Corinthian7

That fight scene as well as the subsequent docking scene does not make Interstellar an action film. Science Fiction films can have bits of action without devolving into mindless narratives.

No, George and Sandra spent most of the movie trying to survive using any resources to hand as they floated in space during that meteor shower.

George was dead after the first ten minutes. The rest of the movie was Sandra pulling off a high-tech “Perils of Pauline” with one crisis (with plenty of fire and explosions) after another.

Yeah, problem solving.

Even as a Trekkie, it’s almost like “what’s the point?” The new shows are so slick it’s like having a new movie every week.

Not if its about a virus

Yeah? What about mindful action?

I’ll take TWOK over TMP any day. But I’ll also take TMP over STID without hesitation.

There’s a strain of Star Trek fan that’s so completely action-phobic, but action has been a part of Star Trek’s DNA since Kirk threw his first punch and the Enterprise fired it’s first torpedo. Don’t fear it. But yes, it should be a judicious part of a good story.

Oh, having some action is fine, but don’t depend on it to CARRY the movie!

Exactly Harry – earn the action.

It sounds like he understands what the franchise is supposed to be about.

Your name is correct.

That my name is Rios?

Actually, my name is not correct because it’s also not Rios.

Don’t get cheeky after I backed you up. Bad form.

OK, the wordplay might’ve gotten lost in translation. Alberto Grimaldi Presents “His Name is ‘Correct'”. Better? No? Nevermind.

LOL. Honestly, I didn’t even know you were backing me up since I wasn’t sure what you meant, so instead I just made a joke. Sorry, mate. :)

Yeah he gets the franchise.

Still dead. He’s just pitching it for media attention at this point.

When did Trek fans all become so negative and cynical? Gheez, man. This place should be renamed DebbieDownerMovie.

“When did Trek fans all become so negative and cynical? Gheez, man. This place should be renamed DebbieDownerMovie”

The seventies? eighties maybe? They were definitely cynical and negative by the Nineties!!

I was an active part of Trek fandom in the Seventies and Eighties, and people were SOOOOO much less inclined back then toward bitching about everything and assuming the worst in everyone. The Best of Trek book series is a testament to that. It’s so depressing now. A website posts news, and immediately people start pronouncing Trek dead or implying sinister motives on the person discussed in the news, as Phil did above. Star Trek fandom needs a massive dose of lithium (or dilithium if it’s available).

My reply was more tongue in cheek to be honest. I wasn’t really a fan until the 90’s but I recall all the bickering that used to go on the internet between the hardcore fans of various Berman era shows that seemed to think it was a competition. You’re right though, fandom is much more toxic now. It seems as though there’s a loud vocal section that are determined to hate anything they do. To be fair to Phil he’s not really a hater he just genuinely believes this movie to be dead in the water. He’s probably right but I hope he’s wrong. I do think the number of interviews Hawley is doing to promote and generate interest in his project is indicative of his concerns over the likelihood of it actually being greenlit. Where there’s life there’s hope though…

Star Trek took itself more seriously back then and that was a good thing. Now we have crap like STID with magic blood, and a loud, annoying cartoon sitcom.

People crap on Rodenberry a lot, but his presence in the franchise ensured a science fiction/future history level of seriousness to Star Trek that is severely lacking today. For instance, compare his TAS series to Lower Decks — that’s analogous to comparing Star Wars to Space Balls.

Last edited 1 month ago by Methusalah

Lower Decks is anything but a loud cartoon sitcom.

But STD is trash with its canon breaking bullshit and crap storyline that had to autocorrect itself by being shoved into a timeline so far away it can no longer do damage.

Are either of us right? Probably not.

Hey, now. Don’t drag me down with you. I am a 9/8/66 Trek fan and I’m still psyched for Trek. :-)

I’m speaking collectively rather than individually, there’s loads of long term fans still positive about Trek, myself included but there’s clearly been a vocal section of the fanbase that’s been… let’s say less enthusiastic for many years now.

Around 2009?

Last edited 1 month ago by Georgiou's Sass

No, definitely before then.

When did Trek fans become so negative and cynical? When CBS started making Star Trek that is so negative and cynical.

You got it, Phil! That’s not being negative, that’s stating the obvious :)

You are mistaken.

Your arrogant trolling is very tiresome. Clearly Hawley knows better than you do what the status of his project is, and he says that it is not dead.

Exactly.

Brad Pitt speaks fondly of the WWZ sequel, too. It’s still dead. If FX orders a season 5 of Fargo next year, and if Hawley gets asked about Trek, I’m sure he’ll pleasant things to say about it. That doesn’t make it any less dead.

You are making a false equivalence.

This movie might end up not happening; it might end up happening, too. Either way, it’s definitively NOT dead if people like Hawley are still talking about it being in development. That’s what development is.

What you’re saying is as if you were referring to a guy who was in a coma as being dead. Well, no. He’s in a coma. There’s a difference.

I agree. As I stated previously I personally do not think a new cast or characters will work and give Paramount the box office money they are after. I also want to remind everyone of Hawley’s lack of success with his Lucy in the Sky box office bomb. Rotten Tomatoes gave a rating in the 20’s(around 27-28 I think). It also did not generate much in the way of a profit either.

Rotten Tomatoes is a POOR barometer of anything. It’s like citing Wikipedia or Donald Trump as a credible source.

Agreed about Rotten Tomatoes, but Lynn’s not wrong about Lucy in the Sky. I want those two hours of my life back.

To a point you are correct, however, my experience is that a movie on RT that has BOTH a very BAD RT reviewer score AND a very bad User Review score — usually turn out to be crap movies. Like with any internet review site there are of course exceptions like Solo and John Carter, two movies that I personally liked but were trashed on RT…but usually what they says sucks, does in fact suck when I view it.

I am not going to jump on you like others’ here for being overly negative — you are entitled to your opinion.

That being said, you can’t prove at all what you are saying here. Paramount and CBS have just merged, and are examining their plans for new Trek movies, and this idea has been put on hold. That is what we all know, unless you claim to have inside information here?

Last edited 1 month ago by Methusalah

It’s an opinion thread, I’m under no illusion that anyone needs to agree with me. My feelings aren’t hurt. But it’s not a negative comment, just a statement of fact. Paramount has entertained three Trek projects (that we know of), and has rejected all of them. There are certain activities that begin to occur when a movie is made – none of them have happened. The evidence, or lack of it, is that there isn’t an active project. Just a studio that has entertained, and rejected three projects.

The movie from Hawley sounds awesome. Hope this movie gains priority among the ideas being pitched. I don’t like Action-Trek where Earth or the Galaxy is at risk again because of some new super-villain.

Sounds like a boring movie that will bomb in the box office. Great way to kill the franchise.

Movies like ‘interstellar’, ‘the Martian’, ‘gravity’ made money and are all about problem solving.

Thank you, Tony.

Star Trek TVH is still one of the most popular and successful Trek movies ever made and the only phaser shot was Kirk shooting a door knob. And no one exchanged a single punch in it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Well said!

These movies did not have the name Star Trek attached to them. Like it or not Star Trek has had part of its success because of the interaction between the characters and their fans, By the time the movies were made audiences had formed associations with the characters and were eager to see them again in a movie. I think this is what Hawley is missing. It isn’t just about a Star Trek story. it is about the close friendships, loyalty and bonds they have forged with each other through shared adventures and experiences. That can not be achieved without using known characters that audiences have come to know. Without this Hawley’s script could just as well be called Space Corp: Saving the Alliance.

Thanks for telling me what I want Lynn.

Yeah it can, since movies with new casts do it all the time. Again, I’m always amazed just how narrowed minded Trek fans are at times. This is a perfect example.

Agreed Tiger2.

Not only are Trek fans open to new ships, casts and characters, a poor Trek movie is not saved by a known cast or characters.

This is especially when the actors are directed to play their roles in a way that goes against who the characters were in the television series or previous movies just to shake things up to broaden the audience.

Example: Nemesis. For me the way Troi was directed to be melodramatically emotional (and a dependent female stereotype) makes it unwatchable. So, I don’t rewatch it. The only Trek film I’ve seen only once is the Final Frontier.

All people are saying is Star Trek has proven over and over again people will watch and give it a chance regardless of its characters, setting, premise, etc, because Star Trek is a brand now the same way Marvel and Pixar is a brand today. You don’t have to know who the characters are to care, you just have to like Star Trek itself because you have loyalty for the brand and NOT just the characters themselves. That’s how something becomes a franchise in the first place, when it can reach a big enough audience on multiple levels.

I don’t understand how people don’t recognize that by now? Why do they think MCU is so successful today? Yes, the characters come from the comics but the overwhelming majority of people watching those movies has never read a comic book in their life and don’t care about that. They just love how they are presented in the movies. The irony is the Marvel comic book sales hasn’t gotten any stronger in the last decade but the movies are bigger than ever.

Now true, Star Trek is not the MCU, I think that has been well established after Beyond’s box office lol. But what it has shown over and over again that the fanbase it does have is willing to give anything a try. The issue with Trek versus other franchises is that it doesn’t have the bigger casual audience like Star Wars does. But the casual audience doesn’t care if they know the characters or not either, all they care about is are the films good or not. If they are it will get an audience. Beyond was sadly the first film that was at least a decent film that bombed but we know its for a lot of reasons and not any one thing.

But I will say because it bombed that Paramount realize it needs to try something different and I think a lot of people are completely on board with that too. I certainly am and Beyond was my favorite out of the three Kelvin movies.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Tiger2. Not narrow minded. I am wondering to which Star Trek generation you belong. I can only assume that you did not see the premier of Star Trek in 1966 and have followed its continuity and development ever since. I do not believe you can have a highly successful Star Trek movie without the audience knowing the characters first. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you are entitled to yours. Why can Hawley’s movie not be made using existing known characters? I’m just not interested in another reboot.

Yes, it’s Tiger2’s opinion and he might be a decade younger than the two of us Lynn, but it’s no less valid, and I agree with him.

It doesn’t seem to have been your intent but you come across as gatekeeping, as if those who had your particular experience of Trek have a more valid understanding. Please don’t.

By the way, saw TOS on television in first-run (even if I was a primary grader). I also watched in syndication as a teen like Tiger2, and saw almost every Trek cinematic feature on the day of its release.

For a long time after TNG took off, I looked back at TOS as dated and cringy.

Seeing TAS and TOS through our kids eyes has recently given me renewed appreciation, but no, I don’t need known franchise characters to be interested.

Not my intention to be gatekeeper but I too am entitled to my opinion and I disagree with you all that known characters do not make a difference. I too watched all of the re-runs when they started showing them as well as seeing every film. I never saw a bad Star Trek either on TV or movie as younger audiences have critiqued. I was just appreciative of having any Trek made. As far as TOS being dated and cringy, it is by today’s standards but ( I’m assuming that you are approx. 10 years younger than me) for its time it was very futuristic. I agree some of the costumes and props look kind of funny now but if you remember computers and what effects could be generated were not available. In fact computers were in their infancy. I think I remember reading somewhere that the transporter swirl was something like filming glitter swirling in a glass. Inexpensive CGI. To look back now even the bridge looks antiquated. I would like to ask you one question though. What made you watch and become a fan of Star Trek? Was it just about the story or was it about the characters and their adventures. Would you have been happy to see a revolving door of characters change each week?

Above statement is from lynn. I do not know why it switched to Sam 20. Sorry for the shift.

Lynn, it’s great that we have fans that watched the premier in 66 and are still following but that’s a dwindling group and you can’t possibly believe that it’s the section of the fanbase that would most influence the success of future movies?

I do not seek to influence any one, merely stating my opinion but i do think that from what I have read in comments from this and other articles that my generation is more tolerant and appreciative of any Star Trek. I still stand by my belief that familiar cast and characters do make a difference in the success of Star Trek films,

That’s an in group bias Lynn, I don’t think you can say any generation of fans is less or more ‘tolerant and appreciative of any Star Trek’. People are just people and there are positive and negative personalities in any demographic. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a familiar cast, I just happen to think that there is room for new and old. Why should we be restricted to just one movie and cast every 3-5 years?

“I do not believe you can have a highly successful Star Trek movie without the audience knowing the characters first.”

Lynn that is your opinion to have and for the record you could be completely right. I’m not really getting on your case about that per se, but I do find it pretty short sighted in many ways though, but that is just as my opinion as well.

The funny thing about all of this is if you had asked most people such as yourself who watched the show back in 1966 if you can have a successful Star Trek without the original characters most of their answers would’ve been the same. We know that because of the fierce backlash TNG got before the show even came on. And now today, cut to 33 years later and people are watching a 30 minute animated comedy about ensigns and most seem to be enjoying it.

Can you imagine if Lower Decks came out in 1987 and not 2020? That would’ve destroyed the franchise lol. My point is that its no longer 1966, the audience has broadened to a much bigger and diverse level since then. Fans today look at Star Trek and can accept it on multiple levels most of the 60s audience probably couldn’t do back then because Star Trek was very limitedly defined at the time. Star Trek fans has always been really fickle when it came to this franchise, but fortunately there has been a big enough audience who actually want to see different things and was very excited about seeing Star Trek broaden and it did…at least on TV.

To think you can’t do that for the movies is just odd to me. No, you probably can’t have a Lower Decks movie lol, at least not now, but most fans out there don’t just look at Star Trek as any one thing anymore, hasn’t for decades now. Just because it hasn’t been done yet on the movie screen doesn’t mean it can’t be done at all. This is just as short sighted as assuming Star Trek could never be more than just Kirk and Spock. The franchise has proven as long as it’s good, it will find an audience. It has over and over again for 50 years now…even when its not so good lol.

Either way we won’t know until someone tries it and I’m happy we are FINALLY at least thinking that direction at least. Maybe you are right and it won’t work, but I’m sure plenty of people said the same thing about TNG. And just think where the franchise would be today if they were convinced of that and never took a chance…we wouldn’t have Lower Decks now. ;D

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Having never seen Lower Decks I can not make a comment. I do agree with you that Star Trek fans are extremely fickle and are not tolerant of any thing new. Just look at some fans description on the Kelvin movies as trash, garbage or worse. I do think my generation has been more tolerant and appreciative of any Star Trek and maybe not quite as picky as succeeding generations. I guess time will tell. Its a moot point for either of us right now because I’m not sure if any of the movies are going to be made.

Agreed

Those movies didn’t have a franchise and a history behind them. Movies like that do better with the general audience.

currently ‘trek’ movies are only playing to fans, limited general audience.
so the current paradigm is not working anymore.

‘risk is part of the game if you sit in that chair’

Stop. Getting. Trek. Wrong.

And Bond!

Pew-pew-pew kablooey! Huff huff huff huff! Pew-pew!

LOL!!!!!!!

Uh, it’s pronounced kahh-blue-eee ;-)

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️

That’s what people want.

Star Trek is not about that.

In other words, A34 does not understand what the Trek franchise is about.

Since we have no idea what the actual plot of the movie is, your trolling criticism is nonsensical, A34.

Totally agree!

Sounds like a stinker. Keep Trek away from this guy.

Moldovan BotNet Alert!

Russian troll alert.

Not Russian…just a troll.

Who let the Simpsons Comic Book Guy in? Burn it with fire.

“Worst A34, ever.”

LOL!!

Come on guys, don’t pile on.

I absolutely don’t have the same taste as A34, but we do need to have someone representing the “Trek needs more action, adventure and adult content” point of view on this board.

It’s definitely out there or we wouldn’t have all the attempts to recover Kirk’s ripped shirt, brawling guy-on-the prowl moments of TOS (however cringy a good portion of audiences find them now).

It’s clear we need to have this discussion because the executives at Paramount and CBSAA keep trying to make action-adventure Trek movies and television series. There’s a serious chance that their market research says that they need to attract some of those kinds of viewers to be profitable.

If you all stomp on A34’s opinions, we’re not likely to hear why he has this view. I for one would like to hear his rationale (granted that I’m one of the long analysis types on the board and that may not be A34’s taste either).

I’ll make this quick. Box office Trek movies should keep it simple and focus on action and adventure to pull in the general audience.

Leave the imaginative stories for the streaming channel where they will be appreciated more.

TG47,

I know you try to be fair to everyone here which is why I like your posts so much, but A34 is nothing but a troll. A sad one at that because he was kicked off this board two years ago when he was NH4 and then sadly showed up again with this new handle doing literally the same trollish things he was kicked off for the first time.

He has no ‘opinions’ this idiot is just here to be a contrarian. He is a complete waste of space and it’s sad anyone gives him the time that they do. I don’t understand why he hasn’t been banned again since all he does is bait people and try to get them to argue with him. Just pathetic.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I still have no idea what your talking about. Are you alright?🥺

NH4 you’re a loser man. Pathetic. You should’ve been banned again long ago.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

A34 is a troll. It’s that simple.

I’m pretty sure I’m not the troll here.

You may as well be hassling a billy goat for walking over your bridge, fella.

Thanks for joining the conversation Alex! :-)

Last edited 1 month ago by Chuck Marble

He’s got my vote.
Paramount, give him the money to make it.

An intelligent Star Trek movie about professional explorers on a mighty starship investigating the wonders and mysteries of deep space vs explosions, motorcycles, fisticuffs and The Beastie Boys? Sign me up, (and take my money, please)!!!

“As much as I like the Bad Robot movies, they are mindless trash for simpletons.”

LOL, yeah that’s what I got as well.

Agreed. That said, (IMO), the JJ films were still better than the CBS shows, (and that’s not saying much).

While I’m enthused at Hawley’s comments, I’m long since grown annoyed and weary of people treating the concept of “action in a Star Trek movie (or television series)” with such abhorrence. There’s nothing at all wrong with having fast-paced action in a Star Trek film (or TV show) as long as a balance is maintained between those action scenes and scenes that emphasize exploration, diplomacy, science, philosophy, moral/social/political/theological themes; the elements of Trek that naysayers are so quick to (inaccurately) claim as having disappeared from the franchise.

And when they compare the Kelvin Timeline films to the first ten Trek films, they forget that the vast majority of those ten films had a significant amount of action; the difference was that most of them were more deftly handled and balanced. They are proof that a new Star Trek film, helmed by the right people, has the potential to be exactly what fans are looking for.

Last edited 1 month ago by Shatterhand2049

Your point is moot since Hawley didn’t treat the concept of action in a Star Trek film with “abhorrence.” Why do so many fans talk like characters in a Hammer Horror film these days?

I notice from many, many posts that like RGB you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood your role here. Like she was illegitimately legislating from the bench instead of pursuing a career in congress to, you know, make laws, you seem to think your purpose in this place is to critique fans, instead of critiquing the show, as everyone else is.

May I suggest you put your superior intellect to better use and get yourself hired by Team Kurtz? Then you can legitimately blast the fans for their harebrained lack of understanding of your masterful work all you want (as Orci once did)!

;)

Last edited 1 month ago by Vulcan Soul

You’re… kind of an idiot, aren’t you? A shame.

I have never found any of Vulcan’s posts to present the impression of having been written by an idiot, albeit his passing swipe at RBG (and not RGB) was totally misplaced and ill-advised, not to mention unsubstantiated at best, unless Vulcan is one of the 8 other judges and has insider knowledge… As far as Rios, yes he can be shall we say direct sometimes, but maybe like me he has reached the point in his life where he just chooses to not let BS go unchallenged… For one I have come to appreciate his posts as well as Vulcan’s, not that I expect either of you to care but come on, just chill. By the way, I must apologize for assuming the masculine gender…

Much appreciated, though I was merely responding in kind to Vulcan’s out-of-left-field rant.

Last edited 1 month ago by His Name Is Rios

Yeah, Kirk puts the glasses on to lower reliant’s shields so the enterprise can fire on and disable it.

I agree with you. When you think of that $20 IMAX ticket price, you have to get something worthy to get you out of the house. I get tired of when critics talk about Trek movies as ‘overblown tv episodes.’

I still say greenlight all the movies and sufficiently space them out so they don’t cannabalize each other at the box office.

The old films had known cast and characters in them. Hawley wants to reboot all characters. Not a good idea. Not interested in another reboot. And why does Hawley keep tooting his own horn about the movie. All of his leaks about the plot doesn’t impress me. Given time there will not be any need to see the movie because he will have leaked the whole thing. Maybe he feels the need because his first movie was such a flop.

And why does Hawley keep tooting his own horn about the movie.

Because it seems that Paramount isn’t interested (or convinced) enough in his pitch to make it happen. So now he’s trying to generate support from fans so maybe Paramount will change their minds.

Maybe they have good reason to put it on hold. All we have to go on is Hawley’s description. Not having read the script I can not say whether its good or bad nor can anyone else. The concept of the idea may be ok but the actual written script awful. Reference again to Hawley’s flop movie.

I don’t disagree. All we have heard is that Paramount has told him that they are no longer pursuing his movie. It might be that his script simply isn’t very good or it might be that Paramount just wants to go a different direction. I haven’t seen Hawley’s other movie, nor have I seen his Fargo show. I did see (I think) the first 2 seasons of Legion and found them interesting.

He didn’t say reboot all characters.
He said the new characters would find a link that takes the story back to the familiar ‘trek’ universe.

Make the movie already! I’m sick and tired of all this empty talk.

Yeah I’m happy to hear that Hawley is not making another Star Trek action movie.

He gets it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Faze Ninja

that’s bulls… for a trek movie i see it possible to have it three different ways… 1) a boring trek movie with all thought no action (the motion picture) which i do like or trek 4 a comedy which i love 2) a star trek movie with all action no thought… (into darkness?) which i do like but def problems 3) both… first contact… star trek… beyond… etc… i’ll never understand why having action scenes in a movie somehow negates the quieter… personal… overriding themes on humanity… i just don’t get it. you can have both but some people see fun and they immediately turn away. star trek was wagon train to the stars that was literally how roddenberry pitched it… tos was fun silly stupid actiony thoughtful it had it all as do many of the movies… beyond and the first 2009 one had it all… the first one TMP is astounding how well made it is but also hoew it lacked personality and humor something nimoy objected to.

The only thing I get annoyed about with Trek movies, and it’s something that Khan basically cemented, is how they all live of die on the strength of a dastardly villain. There are some exceptions – TVH doesn’t need a Khan, Star Trek 2009 succeeds despite the villain being sorely underwritten. Still, all but one post-TWOK film has a singular villain with a nefarious scheme that must be thwarted. That doesn’t reflect a great number of episodes of the TV shows.

So many of the top rated episodes like City on the Edge of Forever, The Visitor, The Inner Light, Living Witness… they don’t really translate into what makes a typical Trek film and yet they typify the best of Star Trek.

And even a lot of the action-oriented Trek episodes don’t have Khan-like villains. A few memorable TOS ones, very few in TNG. It really only starts to be a thing with the Borg, DS9 and Voyager. So there’s this pressure to have a really strong villain in a movie, and this expectation that it’s necessary, but there’s only a handful of indelible singular villains in Trek TV lore. They should get out of that mindset and remember sometimes the best Trek is just about people working together to solve a problem, one that doesn’t always have to come with a Moby Dick quote and a snarl.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ian

I think one of the things that limited the Kelvin timeline was the split between CBS and Paramount.. A lot of ideas and characters were the property of the TV side. I read somewhere that the props had to be slightly different from what the TV had used. Even the uniforms were slightly different. If you remember in STID the Klingons looked like they had evolved further than even in TNG.

I read somewhere that the props had to be slightly different from what the TV had used.

You might have stumbled upon some of the conspiracy theorists who keep harping on about special licenses and “25% different” and similar crap.
The props and uniforms (and everything else) looked different because it was a completely new crew of designers and because technology had moved on (and they had tentpole budgets) allowing them to build stuff that simply wasn’t possible before. Plus, they had a in-story “justification” for the re-design because the movies take place in a different timeline. A nice side-effect of new props and uniforms is that you can sell new merchandise.
These kinds of redesigns have been going on all the time in Trek. TOS got a complete overhaul for TMP. When TNG went to the big screen, they changed some of the TNG sets (like the bridge) for Generations, only to blow up the ship and introduce a completely new Enterprise (and new uniforms) in First Contact.

I don’t think TMP is boring, it has some fascinating character arcs.
And a similar movie like that doesn’t have to be boring if they really add that personality and humour that is part of’trek’.

Here here! Just look at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes’ audience ratings for all nine Star Trek TV shows. TNG & TOS are still the highest rated …by modern audiences, decades after they left the air. While all three “modern” CBS Trek shows are in the bottom third, (Discovery and Lower Decks are currently 8th and 9th place, out of 9). I still see TOS & TNG merchandise on department store shelves, but nothing from Discovery, Picard nor Lower Decks. There’s a reason.

It sounds like this is the Trek movie we have wanted!

As my favorite Vulcan would say … “Indeed!”

My favorite Star Trek is All Good Things. It’s a perfect mix of character, sci-fi, thinking, and action. Make a Trek movie like that

“Indubitably!”

Can a Trek film with a totally unknown crew be able to generate enough interest? Sometimes I think the franchise should just focus on television.

No one will know until they actually TRY it at least. But I have no idea why it wouldn’t if A. it’s a good film on its own and B. the characters themselves are interesting. Star Trek the brand should be enough to attract people like the shows have done for decades now. But I never believed this idea a Trek film will just fail because it has brand new characters in it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

They have to think outside the box, and they have to know how to market the results. They can’t just Berman Trek it (put seven new people on the bridge of a starship and assume it will sell… it won’t).

Ordinarily I’d argue the thing to do is transition away from the current series (in this case split the Kelvin cast into separate films and establish some new characters). They blew it. They would be coming off of two lackluster sequels made a half-decade ago. Even if Kelvin Trek has one more strong movie in them they’re not likely to find it.

So then you need some fresh creative minds who don’t already drink the Trek Kool Aid. I don’t know Hawley, but he’s looked and sounded right in almost everything he’s said. I would gamble on him.

Why do you keep saying Berman as if he’s the only one that has done it? Dude they all do it lol. And Berman is the only one that tried something different and put people on a space station. It’s all been ship based since from Voyager to Lower Decks. No one has done that differently since. Picard is not on a starship but its still a ship.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Picard may not be taking place on a Starfleet ship but it’s certainly a starship because it’s flying through space.

Good point! Yeah I was really thinking of a Starfleet ship basically, but you’re right he is on a starship since it has warp drive basically.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Because the Berman team is the one that kept saying “It’s okay, we can keep making these, you just put seven people on a ship (station, whatever). Everything else, you just do it like we did on TNG, exactly like it in fact.” It was under Behr’s direction that DS9 became a (partial) exception.

I don’t know if Kutzman and Goldsman have even one good Trek show in them (still haven’t been able to renew AA membership for LDS), but every ST under CBS has been non-traditional Trek. STD (on paper, under Fuller) was non-traditional Trek. S31 (which I still hope we don’t get) would be non-traditional Trek. The only Kurtzman show we can’t say that about (yet) is the one fans seem to be most eagerly anticipating.

Again, how is that any different than what Abrams did with the Kelvin movies???

How is it any difference than what Fuller did with Discovery? Yes it was a SLIGHTLY different approach but end of the day its a bunch of Starfleet people on a starship. And what Kurtzman is doing with practically every new show now? Dude, he’s making six shows that we know of, and at least five out of the six are people on starships: Discovery, Lower Decks, Picard, Strange New Worlds and Prodigy.

The only one that we don’t know that actually take place on a ship is Section 31. But ironically since Discovery introduced the idea that Section 31 literally has their own fleet of starships that went against canon in DS9 and ENT, it’s probably not a stretch to assume that show will be on a ship as well. ;)

But we don’t know, so maybe that will be something entirely different, I’m just not holding my breath either, especially if the tiny bit of rumors are true and the show will be time travel based.

I know you have this major hard on for Berman. You are literally the only one who has brought up his name in this thread, and that’s yours to have. But Berman is not running the franchise today and he didn’t create it either.

For most people, the biggest symbol of Star Trek are people exploring the galaxy on a ship. Again, I just find it funny because 40 years ago for most fans, Star Trek would just be the TOS crew being on the Enterprise in the 23rd century and that’s ALL we would’ve gotten for the last 50 years if TNG and of course DS9 didn’t happen. So believe it or not a lot of progress has been made, even under Berman. He said it was OK to do something not on a starship (or a ship named Enterprise) or that you can even have a show that is not in Federation space (Voyager) or when there was no Federation at all (Enterprise).

As you know I support Kurtzman too and I don’t have an issue with people being on a ship, but I am happy he’s trying to at least diversify the franchise with things like Picard and Lower Decks, which at least are different approaches to what we think of Star Trek. But it’s still basically 7-8 main characters on a ship jumping from one planet to the next week after week. No one has done anything differently outside of DS9 no matter WHO is running the franchise.

And its probably why DS9 is my favorite show because it is still the only one that tried to do something radically different from all the rest!

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

DS9 is probably my favorite Trek show as well… except that it’s honestly impossible to choose between either it, classic Trek or TNG.

But it’s not whether you put these seven people on a ship, period, as opposed to a space station or whatever else. I’d prefer to not even have a regular setting, which I saw as the potential for STP, but whatever. It’s whether you assume your work is basically done once you’ve come up with your seven characters and put them on that ship (a la Berman Trek).

So you come up with seven characters. The main character’s your captain (Really? Ok, whatever). You picked which character is your alien. You picked which one is your “human observer” (by now I’m already losing interest). You put them on your ship, you come up with a sort-of premise to base your otherwise-episodic series around… and now they can just go off and have more (TNG-style) episodic adventures, right? Right?

Wrong. WRONG!!

I’m saying you can’t do that. I’m saying that does not work anymore. It ultimately didn’t work for Berman Trek (they squandered it). And I’m saying it’s not going to work for an original-cast movie.

Kurtzman gets it. On paper, he gets it. I don’t know why he can’t make a good ST series; that’s a whole other discussion. He finds the premise, finds the reason for each series’ existence. Picard in his last days. The secret service. The lower decks. (STD doesn’t have a premise, we fired the only guy who understood what it was). It is NOT the rinse-and-repeat, put seven people on a ship/station/whatever that Berman Trek became.

Of course there will be a ship. It’s a movie, it needs a ship. It can’t be something that you could just as easily do with any prior generation of characters. It can’t be formula.

It has to be something that a non-fan would say “I didn’t know ST could be that” and you could see the lie on the fan’s face when he pretended to not be equally surprised.

How did it not ‘work’ for Berman Trek?? It lasted for 18 years man lol. And 25 seasons in total. Outside of Law and Order, what other TV franchise has run that long and with that many shows?? You act like all the shows got cancelled in third season or something.

And all these shows are still being watched constantly today. They are on every major streaming site and where I live you can still catch most of them in reruns six days a week on two channels. Again you act like as if these shows have all been forgotten or something. They haven’t, hence Lower Decks.

And how did Discovery not do that? It’s the same thing. The only difference is they didn’t have a permanent captain since they decided they wanted a non-captain as the lead. But they have the bridge crew, your one new alien (Saru), an ensign (Tilly), doctor (Culber), engineer (Stamets), etc. It’s the same thing! It’s presented a little different because we live in a different time now just like TNG was different from TOS because it too was in a different time. But all these shows still follow the same formula of Starfleet officers being on a ship minus Picard. The major difference is the shows are more serialized, thats all. But its still all very much Star Trek just as before.

I don’t know if Berman beat you as a child or anything, but I don’t have the same issue with him as you did. Not at all. I loved of mostly what he did BUT acknowledged it was time for a change. He just ran it the longest.

But I have liked everyone’s vision so far, including Abrams and the Kelvin movies, even if not as much as others. Maybe I’m just an apologist for all things Star Trek and I should hate everyone but Roddenberry listening to some fans today (and he did a lot of bad things as well), but I don’t. Berman is what Trek is in my eyes. Guess what, I feel the same for Kurtzman’s shows too, but its still new so people are still adjusting. That’s the beauty of Star Trek to me, it isn’t ANY one style or direction. You can go every way with it, its all still valid in my eyes at least.

But we really don’t disagree, change IS good. I want to see more of it. Ironically thats WHY I want a new movie cast in the first place, because then we can get something entirely different maybe. And I’m just tired of Kelvin movies with another uber-villain with a big ship. Or maybe everyone is just on the Enterprise F lol. I don’t know.

But for most fans, Star Trek is still Starfleet officers on ships exploring, that hasn’t changed that much. Even for Picard, the only reason that show doesn’t have him on the Enterprise again because it was Stewart who made it clear he would only come back if it was radically different. But trust me, if CBS had their way it would be TNG 2.0 on that show.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

IMO, the big difference between DS9 doing something radically different with Star Trek and the Viacom/CBS shows doing something radically different, is that DS9 still adhered to the decades of established Trek continuity while the Kelvin films — and especially the CBS shows — don’t. Yes, DS9 was different to be sure, but it still “felt” like Star Trek to me, while the Kelvin films and particularly the CBS shows “feel” like an entirely different franchise to me, (and not in a good way). Many of today’s creatives feel that adherence to established continuity is unnecessary at best, and a burden at worst. But to me, new shows within a franchise that still respect and adhere to established continuity, while charting their own path, are what’s kept me watching Star Trek, (and buying Trek merchandise), for decades … right up until 2009 anyway.

I certainly understand what you mean. I guess I should make this clearer. The Kutzman shows ARE different from the Berman shows for sure, I was mainly just talking about the basic formula, ie, people on a starship and they travel to new worlds and civilizations and trying to do right for the galaxy.

But yes, that is probably where the similarities mostly end. So I’m not disagreeing with Sam they are different in terms of tone and style, but it’s still basic Star Trek, ie, there is a crises, team works together to work to understand the crisis, either a battle situation, some anomaly or some kind of social crisis on a planet, TONS of technobabble later lol, it’s all solved and they go their next adventure.

With serialized shows, its not as direct as episodic ones but one of the reasons I liked season 2 of Discovery better because they did adhere to that a lot more in season 2 and the stories felt a lot closer to classic Trek. A lot of those stories felt like they could’ve been made with TNG, TOS or VOY.

But I also know for people like you, you feel the shows have gone too ‘dark’ or lost the optimism of the other shows. Yes I agree as well. That is actually the biggest reason I still love the Berman shows so much, the optimism is always there, even with DS9. It is a darker show for sure but it doesn’t feel bleak or heavy in the way Discovery felt in its first season.

Personally I’m not AS bothered by the lack of that as others. I have my issues with the new shows too, plenty. The main one being they just haven’t been very well written. That’s the #1 issue I think for a lot of us who ISN’T in love with them. But yes when you add some of the continuity issues DIS especially has had and PIC doesn’t have the spirit that TNG did (although they kept saying it would) then I get it. Again not AS bothered…but still certainly bothered and why I’m still adjusting myself.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I have a different question for you and to get my point across, but do you still watch all the other shows, TOS-ENT? Like a few times a month? I do, all the freaking time lol. In fact I have been watching SO MUCH Star Trek in the last few months, I been avoiding new shows I been wanting to watch. So I finally told myself I’m going to take a break from some of the Trek reruns and watch things I have not actually watched yet. So far it’s been a week, so like someone in AA, it’s one day at a time. ;)

But for me, the overwhelming majority of the Trek shows I watch are TNG-VOY as my first tier easily, with ENT and TOS on my second tier although I am rewatching TOS a bit more lately now. Third tier is all the new All Access shows.

I tried to rewatch an episode of Picard a week ago, Nepenthe. It’s a great episode, but it just feels SO weird to watch it on its own now since the show is over. I want to focus on the main story of Picard reuniting with Riker and Troi, but then of course you have all the other stuff happening in the background that makes it hard to get into as it’s own proper story. That’s why I don’t know if these new shows will ever have the level of viewing as the classic shows because you can’t watch them as standalone like the others. One of the biggest issues with serialized shows, it’s all or nothing.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Again I remind everyone Lucy in the Sky. Do you really want him messing around with Star Trek?

Have you actually seen “Lucy in the Sky”? Probably not. Even if that movie is bad what makes you think that it is representative of what Hawley would do with Trek?

Do you really want to take that chance? Not me I want Paramount to keep making Star Trek movies.

ST is never going to be great if it cannot take chances on people and ideas, especially those that aren’t already conventionally Trek. I hate speaking in cliches, but familiarity really does breed contempt. I realized when Generations and then VOY came out that ST’s best days were probably behind it. Do you realize how long ago that was? The Kelvin films ran out of gas. What kind of movies do you want them to keep making?

I probably realize when Generations an VOY came out better than you since I was 16 when the very first Star Trek episode debut on TV in 1966. I think the Kelvin films were mismanaged by Abrams. He rebooted Star Trek in 2009 and then just walked away to pursue his real love which was Star Wars. I still do not understand why he decided to reboot Khan. Poor choice in my opinion.

So then he just never directs again? Or he just never comes near ST? Really, seriously? How many years did they give the Berman team? How many years are they going to give Kurtzman and Goldsman?

Great point.

Yes, there are occasionally clunkers that deep-six a director’s career.

Jonathan Frakes hasn’t been allowed near a feature film since he made Thunderbirds. He has been fairly public in acknowledging his deficiencies on that project and how it impacted his career.

Frakes also acknowledges that if it weren’t for Trek, he wouldn’t be working.

I bet Lynn isn’t saying that Frakes should never touch a Trek production again.

Frakes is not one of my favorite cast members or directors.

Not his fault.
Working Title wanted TB to be a ‘spy kids’ type movie, completely misunderstanding the appeal of the 60s original.

To be honest I have not seen any of the paid channel programs for 2 reasons. According to a lot of fans it is not worth viewing and I am from the generation where Star Trek was free. Its the principle of paid TV that I am against. Also Disney to me is a better deal.

So you aren’t watching Star Trek Discovery season one now that it’s being broadcast (free) on CBS television stations as of last Thursday?

Nope. Heard too many naysayers state that it isn’t good.

So, you’re not even going to watch it – free – and form your own opinion.

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️

And, naysayers can never be wrong?

To add to my above statement the episodes also sounded like they had already started and that mixed with all of the negative critique did not inspire me to pursue finding out when Star Trek was airing.

But if you think that Star Trek should be free then the movies aren’t for you anyway. Paramount sure as hell isn’t going to run them in cinemas for free.

I expect to pay to watch a movie but I do not expect to pay for TV programming.

Lynn,

No offense but this tells me you are pretty narrow minded in your entire approach to Star Trek then. You don’t want to pay $6-10 a month for a franchise you claim to be a big fan of? Ok, you heard they suck as shows (and I won’t lie, they haven’t been amazing) but as a fan I would at least watch a few MYSELF before deciding that. I think most fans would.

You can sign up the first week of All Access for free. A few times they have even offered the entire first month for free. Sign up and just binge watch some of the shows that way. Picard is only 10 episodes, that’s pretty easy to watch in a week.

And people complain about the fact you have to pay for it now, but no way would we be getting this much of Star Trek so fast without it. You might gotten Discovery and maybe Picard on CBS but that would’ve been it for a long time. And a streaming service gives them more freedom to do things with they couldn’t on a network, especially one as generic as CBS usually is and I don’t love All Access at all. I think most are only watching it because of Star Trek but there would probably be no Star Trek without it sadly.

I guess (and this has nothing to do with Star Trek) is just how many streaming services are you going to have to sign up for to get the programming you want. It has to end at some point. My decision whether to subscribe to a streaming channel is not based on one program I want to see but rather all of the venue of the streaming channel. I don’t make my next statement to antagonize anyone, I really would like to know. What else can CBS offer. Disney+ has Marvel,Pixar,all of the old classics and The Mandolorian.

No I understand that believe me. You’re right it is just too many of these services now. I think I currently have every major one minus Apple+. But I am also splitting a few with my girlfriend so its not that bad. And yes the ONLY reason I have All Access is because of Star Trek. There is really no other reason I would have it now. It’s not a great service since I don’t really care to watch anything other than Star Trek. But yes I love Trek so much its still enough to keep me subscribed all year (but only pay for the $6 option). I keep telling myself after a show ends I would just cancel but then I keep telling myself I might rewatch one of the new shows, but never do lol.

But we know All Access is not great and the reason why they are changing the name to Paramount+. They are starting to realize just adding more Star Trek shows and an occasional new show every few months isn’t going to cut it for most people and considering the huge competition out there. They just need more of everything to keep people longer than a few months to watch it.

But I will say if you at least want to give the new shows a shot, then you actually have a great deal most of us didn’t have and you only need to subscribe for a month and watch all the new shows to your hearts desired. There are now three new Trek shows on and a total of four seasons worth of shows. Lower Decks only has two more episodes before that one ends soon. At this moment, you’ll basically have around 50 episodes of new Trek to watch and if you have the time can binge watch it all for $6-10 and can cancel afterwards. Actually you would have 5 weeks to watch because the first week is free. I paid $25 per ticket just to see Beyond in Imax. So yeah not a bad deal lol.

That is the one great advantage about streaming services, you aren’t forced to keep them. You can sign up just to watch a movie or a show you want and then cancel. And you still have a month to check out other things. Just a suggestion if you want to give a few a shot.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Than you, I just might do that.

Couldn’t the same be said of Alex Kurtzman, (the producer/director of 2017’s “The Mummy”)? Oh wait, perhaps you have good point there. :-)

As an afterthought, I would sooner see ST ditch TV altogether than see it ditch making movies.

I don’t see why not. Rogue One was a success for Star Wars and aside from brief appearances of Tarkin, Vader, and Leia, it was an all new set of characters in a familiar setting. They could do something similar with Trek, and just have a brief appearance by one of the established characters like Picard or Janeway.

Good example Thorny. Same with TNG: It was an entirely new set of characters on a new Starship Enterprise, but featured a cameo from DeForest Kelly, (Bones from TOS), in the pilot episode. It went on to become quite a success, (and is the only Star Trek show that has higher modern audience scores than TOS).

Hard to know without hearing even more, but there is also the possibility of having a straight-to-streaming feature.

I’d really like to see some of those in the Star Trek universe.

Man, it seemed like a LOT longer that 6 1/2 years between Nemesis and ST:2009! That said, I think there is a seed of an interesting possibility here if Paramounts wants to pursue it, and others have mentioned it here before… Star Trek Cinematic Universe! Every 3-4 year a big “showcase” film with a smaller film or two in each of the intervening years. Kind of like taking the current television approach of different flavors of Star Trek for different taste but something Trek on almost always but in the format of Disney’s successful, crow-drawing Marvel and Star Wars universe films… though, let’s not model things too much after how they have run that other space franchise over the last few years ;)

I love the $ in your name, feels kinda appropriate here. The problem with that kind of universe is you have to build it. Kevin Feige knows how. DC doesn’t, Sony doesn’t, even SW apparently doesn’t (though I think they came a lot closer than most fans give them credit for), and ST definitely doesn’t.

Almost everybody says it can’t be done for ST, but I flatly reject that opinion. It COULD be done, but nobody knows how to do it. Kelvin movies were a good start, but they ran out of gas. I don’t think any of the pre-Avengers Phase One MCU films did much better than the first two Kelvin films.

I would prefer to just see the occasional oddball ST film every 3-4 years or so. And I do mean oddball, as in not a franchise effort. Let every film exist on the whims of a writer-director who suddenly for whatever reason wants to do ST. I would never suggest going back to the TOS movies (you can never go back), but those movies were the only period in the movie franchise in which (almost) every film was allowed to be it’s own unique beast.

I agree about the uniqueness of each of the TOS movies. The TOS films have always been my favorite period of the franchise (can’t get enough of the maroon monsters and the Enterprise never looked better). Could you get two films more different in tone and concept than Wrath of Khan and Voyage Home? But they are both stellar films with a clear common language, and when all is said and done what consistently brings me back to those films are the quiet character moments. I also agree that Feige has been unique in his ability to create a successful shared cinematic universe. I think we are actually in synch on the heart of what I was saying, in that I’d like to see some variety in the ST movies instead of tentpole films years apart from each other that are, in many ways, the same movie over and over again. Oh, and the $ is because that’s the nickname students gave my when I was teaching in Texas in 2010… Hutch$ (pronounced Hutch-money). It’s kinda stuck as my go to semi-anonymous comment name for boards like these since then. ;)

I feel ya. I’m thinking the X-Men franchise model (seen from the benefit of hindsight) could work well for ST. Except I would want for a wide variety of ST films to exist upfront, rather than playing the long game in order to get to them. I also don’t think we’d want to see these movies any less than two years apart, per tradition, until such sustainability has been proven.

Definitely nothing in ST cinema so far beats the classic movies. Cheers :)

I like what I am reading. There is room for several movies, all different, at the same time. Every 2 years, a new Trek movie…will be great, multiple casts…just awesome!

While I’m not holding my breath anymore, I REALLY hoping this film gets made.

This is the difference between the Hawley and Tarantino ideas. The more Hawley talks, the more excited and confident I feel he at least really understands Star Trek and wants to do something actually original with it. I had the complete opposite feeling the more I heard Tarantino talked about it. So glad he walked away.

Maybe Hawley’s film will happen. We need a new Star Trek movie and it would be nice to have a new film series that doesn’t involve Kirk jumping off something every film like he’s in a Mission Impossible movie.

Hawley is used to working in television and television budgets. Wrath of Khan was made by Paramount’s tv division and a low budget and the result was of outstanding quality. If Hawley can bring his Trek movie in on a low budget, the risks of cinema failure are reduced substantially. A new cast of unknowns will keep the budget low, and maybe one or two legacy characters in small roles will bring in more of the fan base. I’m sure there will be SOME action in the movie, but if it takes a backseat to story and character development we may end up with a true classic.

I am interested in both the Hawley and Tarantino ideas. I hope that we learn in detail at some point what the Tarantino movie idea actually is. People bemoan that it would be a remake of A Piece of the Action, but we really don’t know what he would have done with the idea.

That said, it does sound like Hawley is dialed into the true soul of Star Trek and I hope that he gets a chance to realize the project.

You’re right we don’t know what Tarantino would’ve done with it and it could be very good. I just want something more original. When you have a TV show, stuff like that works great because you have SO many episodes and you can throw in that kind of fan service in from time to time.

But when you have ONE two hour movie every few years, I just like to see it feel more unique and a bit more universal. That just sounds like something for hardcore Trek fans to get excited about. If they can do it with a TV movie or something, it would probably be great. But I just want something that PUSHES the franchise forward and not simply remake it over and over again.

To be honest this example was a big reason I was never truly excited about a TOS reboot because I was afraid this is the kind of stuff we would get. But its not to say it can’t be great obviously.

But Hawley is doing EXACTLY what I want to see in a film, new characters and a different approach altogether. That said, it doesn’t mean it will be great obviously but it is the approach that excites me more.

doubt it will see light of day, like his ‘casino royale’ with brosnan as bond.

Tarantino has already said he has moved on and since they only commissioned a script because he said he might be interested in directing it, then its probably dead. Again, if that wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t have hired a new writer and director to come up with a new idea. They would’ve just tried to develop the Tarantino script they had for three years now.

I like Hawley’s thinking. His description of Kelvin movies having the cast run back on forth on the Enterprise is spot on. Repetitive running in hallways, flashing lights & sirens. Really a waste of time. Hope he gets to do Trek his way.
Unfortunately, I don’t know if we will ever get to see movies in theaters the same way again. So many have just closed or gone out of business. Protection from the pandemic and viruses of all kinds are the priority with an audience today. Maybe streaming at home is the next big thing or entirely the future of films. Big films are still being delayed. I have no idea of what the future of film distribution will look like.

Hopefully the theatre industry will survive, and we’ll all be able to go back to them when the pandemic has passed.

Going to a theatre/cinema has always been a rarity for me. The last time I went I can no even remember lol – I’m thinking it was to see Terminator 2 3D a couple of years ago I think. I’m not sure I’m alone. Another thing these days is that so many more people have these brilliant home cinema set ups and 50 and 60inch tvs. Why on earth do you need to go to a cinema with people who are constantly moving around, talking, standing up, etc

As little as 15 years ago the highest quality sound and picture quality was something you could only really experience at cinema for most people. That’s is not the case today. It’s much more affordable to have big tvs and top-end sound setups.

Last edited 29 days ago by Datamat

He’s saying the right things, even though the only Trek films that didn’t prioritize action over most other elements were TMP and TVH. They were both hits, so it’s not like it’s a lost cause.

Besides Paramount hemming and hawing over whether the IP can and should incorporate smaller films alongside big tentpoles, there has to be a worry that Hawley’s star is on the decline. Fargo has been lackluster this season despite his returning to its helm. Legion became all style and idiosyncrasy over substance, Lucy in the Sky was a critical and box office flop. He’s no longer the hot commodity he was when he was approached as possibly Paramount’s next JJ Abrams.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ian

Amen!

I don’t think you have to get rid of Action, but you have to get a better balance and the Action you make should make more sense/be more intelligent.

He took as an example the beginning of an Action scene, but one did with more dignity and a little more intelligent.

Nowadays Action is like two Army’s running towards each other blindly and then just punching each other till the last man is standing.
Where are the tactics, what about strategic thinking…

Not all about action?!? Then what the hell am I supposed to look at for two hours? A bunch of people talking blah, blah, blah? I watch movies to see people running around constantly with lots of colored lights and loud sound effects, like in the JJ Abrams movies. Keep ’em running all the time. Don’t let them stop for even a moment—that’s excitement! Not a bunch of pretty photography and talking. Who the hell wants to listen to people talk? Of what possible interest could that be? Unless maybe you want to take a nap. This Hawley guy really doesn’t seem to understand his audience and what they want from these movies.

But if people don’t talk, we can’t have dramatic counting scenes!

Have you seen Star Trek?

how much of ‘khan’, UC or FC was ‘ people running around constantly with lots of colored lights and loud sound effects’?

Not as much as ST09, STID and STB.

Though FC has more than enough logic problems to make up for it.

I take it that you didn’t like “The Martian”?

I enjoyed THE MARTIAN very much!

Question! Could Star Trek: The Motion Picture be a hit if released today in current times.

No, because nobody is going to movie theatres right now.

I’m guessing he can’t stand Lower Decks then.

Really, REALLY hoping this will happen. It sounds great. Of course there should be SOME action — just not from 5 minutes in to 5 minutes from the end.

Hire him back! He speaks sense!

Not interested in a new cast or new characters. I will not even bother to spend time or money to see it if Paramount chooses this script. Every Star Trek movie ever made has used known cast and characters. I don’t think audiences will even associate the movie as being a Star Trek movie without being able to relate to the cast or characters. In other words it will be just another sci-fi movie. Its only relationship to Star Trek history will be in the usage of the Star Trek and Federation names, props and logos.

How can you think like this when there have been 7 different TV iterations with different casts? Do you really need to wait for the cast of Discovery to show up in a movie to see it as ‘Star Trek’? This argument is just very strange to me.

What is the difference between doing it in a show or in a film?

Yes I have seen Star Trek TV shows with new casts. The difference is with TV shows you have multiple 1 hour episodes over a seasons schedule to get to know the characters and the cast for that matter. With a movie you not only have new cast and characters to get to know and to follow the plot in the span of 1-3 hrs. I just think without fan support of the characters Star Trek is not Star Trek but just another sci-fi movie.

I get your point but part of your argument just makes no sense. How is it NOT Star Trek just because it’s new characters in a movie??? What does that even mean?

OK, so explain this to me, let’s say the movie does have a new crew of characters but we later learn two characters in the movie that show up are familiar TOS or TNG characters like Worf and Riker, just not part of the main cast. Would just having them now make it ‘Star Trek’?

If you don’t want to see new characters in a movie or just feel it will fail without old ones, fine, those are all valid arguments. But your argument it’s not ‘Star Trek’ is just beyond odd to me and makes zero sense on its head.

Its got to be attractive to the Worldwide audience

Exactly and always been the issue with Star Trek in general, its just never been that big worldwide. Western audiences love it but Asia, South America, etc, its never really reached them like other places.

That’s the other crazy thing, if you make the movies too much like Star Trek you scare off new fans. If you make it too broad, you lose the interest of the old fans. It’s why Star Trek has always just been better for TV. They have a big enough audience to watch it and they don’t need to spread it in every market worldwide for it to be successful. And they can make it as ‘Trek-y’ as they want because that’s what most fans want. If it appeals to new fans, great, but its not a necessity like the films have to be.

That said Star Trek gets new fans all the time. There is not a day go by on Reddit someone says they watched TNG, VOY, ENT, etc for the very first time. And that’s probably thanks to streaming and how accessible all the shows are now. But it’s still probably not enough for Trek to ever go to the popularity of Harry Potter or MCU unfortunately.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I do think it would add continuity to the script and at least it would bridge between the two. Remember Mr. Scott had a cameo appearance in TNG. To me Star Trek is more about the characters and their interactions than bring just a space story. How can you get to know the characters if they are continually rebooted.

OK fair enough. And I want to make this clear. Obviously I am fine if they bring back old characters. I would love for a DS9 movie, but yes that hope died out long ago lol.

I just A. want a movie B. a good movie and C. something original (but that’s clearly optional ;)) As a fan, that’s really all I care about since I’m going to see whatever they make regardless. But yes there are a lot of other balls in the air they have to think of to get everyone else to go. It’s probably why I don’t think we’ll see a new film for a few more years either way, regardless whose in it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I agree with you that I too want a good script. Paramount in on article recently mentioned making Star Trek multi-versed but not if they make a movie every 4-6 years. There is room for different stories and new characters but I think you need a familiar face to tie it all together and maybe this is the solution for all of the diverse fans. Multiple movies with old and new faces interacting. It doesn’t always have to be about TOS, TNG, TWOK, etc. but it would be good to have known characters to bridge the gap.

It seems strange to you because you don’t seem interested in how “Star Track” appears to mainstream audiences. You don’t seem to acknowledge that they matter. With you, the target audience is probably 80 percent fans, 20 percent new viewers. It’s the exact opposite of that, particularly on the movie side.

Fans didn’t abandon Nemesis, the general moviegoers did. I’ve said this before, the fans will never be enough. Fans will make you Nemesis money; they’re participation is already guaranteed. There is actually a huge difference between doing it in a movie vs a TV show. And even on the TV side, you saw the decline. You’ve looked at that Nielsen graph.

I’m at least interested in what an original-cast movie would look like, who would make it, and how you would market it. Even if the prerequisite circumstances (such as the film franchise already being in good health, and the general audiences and critics acknowledging as much) can’t be met — and they’re not going to be met at this point.

But rest assured, even if Hawley or someone else did roll the hard six with an original-cast ST film, it wouldn’t look like anything most fans would expect. And many of you would reject it first time around.

“It seems strange to you because you don’t seem interested in how “Star Track” appears to mainstream audiences. You don’t seem to acknowledge that they matter. With you, the target audience is probably 80 percent fans, 20 percent new viewers. It’s the exact opposite of that, particularly on the movie side.”

The irony of your post is however most of the new people who watch these films NEVER watch the shows man, so what difference does it make to them lol. Your argument seems pretty backward to me. Although I don’t believe it’s anywhere close to 80% of new viewers who watches these movies, not even close. But whatever it is, if they never watched the shows then its basically new characters to them either way, right?? I always assumed they bring the TV characters into the films to get the actual fans invested since they are the ones who has been watching the characters for years and the majority who bothers to watch these movies. But if the majority who did watch never seen any of the TV shows, then what do they care??? Sorry, this is confusing to me.

“Fans didn’t abandon Nemesis, the general moviegoers did. I’ve said this before, the fans will never be enough. Fans will make you Nemesis money; they’re participation is already guaranteed. There is actually a huge difference between doing it in a movie vs a TV show. And even on the TV side, you saw the decline. You’ve looked at that Nielsen graph.”

Again no offense, once again you’re making the argument for me. The general audience is NOT invested in the characters the way that fans are, so what am I missing??? You just made that point. They never watched TNG on TV, only in the movies, so they don’t have a vested interest one way or the other…it’s the fans that does. For them, they just care its a good move and we know Nemesis WASN’T a good movie lol. Far from it, so they didn’t bother and I can’t blame them. But the fans (well some of them anyway ;)) went and saw it. But new fans read the reviews, said it sucked and they simply stayed away. This is not rocket science.

So basically your point is fans will watch anything because it says Star Trek on the title. But non TV fans will only watch a movie of characters that none of them EVER bothered to watch on TV? Huh?

It seems to me you would be arguing the opposite point. Basically you’re saying for new fans knowing the characters before watching the film doesn’t really matter, just the film itself and how they perceive it does. So we agree lol.

All that’s been said here is just to try it. My god, it’s not the end of the world. If they bring in all new characters and it bombs, fine, now we know. But if its a major success, then it now lays different opportunities for the franchise going forward JUST like the TV side did once TNG became a bonafide success. No one is going to know that until they try it first, correct?

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

You would understand if you weren’t instead trying to take apart what I said by proving black is white. You don’t understand because you don’t want to understand. You don’t want to acknowledge that the general audience is essential for ST, or that it actually matters what ST looks like to people outside of fandom.

The fans bring in Nemesis money. They couldn’t save Nemesis, they couldn’t save ENT, and who even knows how the frack the Kurtzman Trek shows are paying for themselves.

It’s beside the point that Nemesis was not a good movie. Yes, you actually have to make a good movie. It goes without saying you have to make a good movie. Most of the ST movies are actually not that good. Fans will see them anyway. But if you make a GOOD movie critics and general audiences WILL acknowledge it.

Every ST movie that did better than Nemesis (which is all of them) performed the way they did because PEOPLE (not just fans) went to see them. General audiences, not fans, determined that The Voyage Home was the most successful ST movie prior to the 2009 reboot. People who call it “Star Track” or refer to Nimoy’s character as “Doctor Spock” made the movies as un/successful as they are.

And most of them have probably watched more than a few episodes of (the first two) TV shows, and picked up a lot of Trek through cultural osmosis. They certainly know enough of it to humiliate anybody who wears his fandom on his sleeve.

Wanting to see something familiar in a ST movie is no different than holding that same level of expectation to a Marvel or DC film. Is this going to be accessible to me AT ALL? Or am I going to have to pull out my phone and text on it just to make everybody miserable (and probably walk away with a couple anecdotes to shame my Trekkie friends with afterward)? They look to familiar faces, catchphrases and symbols just to orient themselves.

Unquestionably ST’s film franchise would be healthier if it had more going for it than TOS, TNG, and reboot variations of the two including Starfleet Academy and what-not. But you have to build it. It takes time and commitment (more so than studios typically have the patience for).

And I have NEVER out-right rejected the idea of an original-cast ST movie. But any fan who’s stuck in the ’90’s era of Trek, and either believes that “next-next generation” phase of Trek should have continued on forever OR that making spin-off movies shouldn’t be any different, is PROBABLY not qualified to visualize what such a movie would look like or how you would market it.

Sam, I read the whole thing. It didn’t make a lot of sense like this doesn’t make a lot of sense. You’re trying to have it both ways man, that’s the problem. On one hand you’re saying Trek died off because people got tired of the franchise in general, OK, fine. But then you’re saying new audiences will only care if they know familiar characters they never bothered to watch for free in the first place??

That makes no sense man.

You are basically saying they will go if the movie is good and it’s not too ‘Trek-y’, well yeah, hopefully lol. But as you ALSO pointed out, if it sucks, then they won’t go regardless who is in the film. That’s where your argument falls apart. They aren’t loyal to the characters, they simply go because they know something about Star Trek and been told the movie itself is worth seeing.

There is ZERO proof a new audience won’t like a movie with brand new characters any less. None. Basically they decide to go movie by movie. If its good they will show up. If it isn’t they won’t. Of course that’s most movies lol, but thats the difference with franchises, even the bad ones can still make money because they still have enough of a loyal base to make it successful. Nemesis wasn’t the only bad film, it was just the worst one to a lot of peoples eyes and premiered at a bad time on top of it.

I’m just not buying this argument. It makes no real sense on its head. And your other point doesn’t make sense when you say new fans stay away from Trek because they don’t understand what is going on. I agree but isn’t that the OTHER problem?? When you are building movies off of TV shows you are clearly building them from characters already well developed, right? Both the TOS and TNG movies had characters that were well known by fans but it makes it harder for non fans. Just because they recognize their names isn’t going to make it easier to get into the characters based off of decades of history. That’s always been the issue.

Now you can make characters with a CLEAN slate for both fans and non fans to get to know from the beginning. That’s a different advantage instead of trying to understand why Data wants emotions in Generations or why Khan was so pissed at Kirk in TWOK. The Kelvin movies basically did that as well, at least the first film. But then it got super Trek-y in the sequel and new fans were right back where they started…kind of lost lol.

But even if the Kelvin movies were easier, that is still not enough because new fans STILL stopped caring, right? That is literally why they are even thinking of going another way now. If having those characters guaranteed a decent turn out of new fans we wouldn’t be talking about any of this now since we know the old fans will show up no matter what.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

It only doesn’t make sense if you’re predetermined for it to not make sense (which unfortunately, I have to say seems to be the case whenever we’ve had this discussion. I mean I have to assume it’s deliberate). I’ve re-read the supposed contradictions you insist to be highlighting, and I still don’t see them.

Trek died off because because people got tired of the franchise in general? TRUE.

New audiences only care if they know familiar characters they never bothered to watch for free in the first place? FOUL.

I never said they never bothered to watch ST, you’re the one who keeps saying that. I’ve been saying you have them to thank for every ST picture that’s performed well (You’re welcome). They obviously can’t as a whole be that new then. I already said most of them probably have seen it on TV. It is possible to do without being devoted to it.

People will go to a movie if it’s not too ‘Trekky’? PROBABLY true. (Although FC was more Trekky than I would have liked, and general reaction was still positive, go figure — Ironically TNG fans at the time were the most cynical).

But if it sucks, they won’t see it regardless who’s in it? That kind of goes without saying, doesn’t it? They’re OBVIOUSLY not going to see it if they’re not committed to it like you are, oh and PS it also sucks. I don’t see why my argument “falls apart” there. You think you can dismiss a movie because it sucks? (Let alone concur with someone else who dismisses it that I don’t make sense, as if I’m not right here?) It’s the sucky installments that reveal how big your “devoted” audience actually is.

It will never be big enough. You can’t have ST to yourselves, especially not on the big screen. We had a GOOD TV-based “space adventure” movie perform as badly as Nemesis did right around the same time (And as soon as you read that, you knew which one I’m talking about).

There is “zero” proof “new audiences” won’t like a movie with brand new characters any less?

First of all, we’ve already established they’re not that new. In fact that’s part of the problem. ST has its sheer volume of mediocrity working against it, and non-fans intuitively KNOW this. It’s a much harder sell now than it was in, say, 1994. (ST also has its cultural recognition factor working FOR it, but you’ve denied it this because you relate most closely to the generation in which ST’s Roddenberrian ideas were believed to be transcendent over its characters.)

Second, how do you explain the drop-off of popularity with each series? (Or do you just not even acknowledge it?) How do you explain the non-fans who said “No, I like TNG just fine… I just don’t like all the other crap that comes with it.” (And don’t tell me you never heard people say that). Now factor that in with mow much more money you need to make a movie and how big an audience to justify it.

And I don’t know where you said it was the fans who made the 2009 movie as successful as it was, but I promise you’re on another planet if you insist on believing that. If fans could generate those kinds of numbers they’d have made damn sure even the mediocre Treks performed better than they did.

We KNOW the Kelvin films ran out of gas. Citing that does not change the fact that PERCEPTION. Fracking. Matters in figuring out how to craft a movie and market it for a wider audience. It’s the Star Trek banner (which Paramount is notoriously conflicted over what to do with; at times they’ve literally been afraid to use those words within a title). Not some completely new sci-fi movie. The audiences you need are never going to treat it as an original sci-fi movie; it will always carry the baggage of ST. How are you going to exploit that to your advantage?

And I’ve never said an original cast movie cannot be done (which you keep seeming to conveniently ignore despite insisting you’ve read my posts). It could be done much more easily if the ST film franchise were already in better health (it’s not, and it’s not going to be).

I AM saying nobody already indoctrinated with ST is going to know how to do it. You think it should be as “easy” as doing a new TV series. It’s obviously never been easy, when only four movies out of thirteen are actually good. Hawley seems to have an outsider’s perspective; that would give him a HUGE advantage. And I’ve already said (on this same page) that I would gamble on him.

Sam believe it or not, I do know people who are not Star Trek fans. They never cared about it when it was TOS or TNG movies. They never cared about it when it was the Kelvin movies. The very few times I had a friend or family member who was interested in seeing a Trek film when there was someone they actually knew, ie, an actor, in the film. My mother took me to watch TWOK when it came out. It was the first Star Trek film I saw on screen. I was very excited being just a kid. Do you know why she took me? Because Paul Winfield was in the movie lol. That’s it! That was the ONLY reason she even considered taking me to the movie because in the black community at that time Paul Winfield was a big actor and the movie got good reviews, so she went to see him in Star Trek.

You know how many movies she has seen since? Zero. Not one. She has never cared and she knows all the characters thanks to her obsessed son that use to have most of them as action figures on his dresser and watched the shows every week for decades. I had plenty of friends that grew up hearing about TNG and none had any interest to see the shows or the movies and this was when TNG was everywhere.

I had another friend who saw FC because Alfred Woodard was in that movie. They ended up liking the movie but never bothered to watch anything in Trek beyond that. This is most of the people I know. They could tell you a little something about Star Trek but they still don’t care. Non fans do not think that hard about it lol.

Look we’re just going to agree to disagree. I’m not going to go in circles over something NO ONE knows if its true or not. You have your opinion on it, I have mine. The reality is we just won’t know until the day Paramount decides to make one. Until then its just a guessing game, right?

But since this looks like the third movie they have put on ice, it could be years before we see another film one way or the other, so its feeling silly to argue about it now.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I agree. Paramount is going to do what they want no matter what each of us think. I do think its wonderful though that Star Trek fans can discuss their differences in opinions without getting nasty. Wouldn’t it be amazing if that held true for real life!

Alright cool. Not convinced though.

But Nemesis failed despite featuring a known cast.
Star Trek hasn’t traditionally fared well in a lot of foreign markets. I’m not sure an original-cast ST film would have a worse chance of success there than a film using a (possibly rebooted) established group of characters.
As for the US, I’m not sure. It seems to me that outside of big, already established franchises (e.g. Marvel, Star Wars) many original large-scale films struggle to find audiences. Star Trek has tried expanding its audience with the Kelvin movies by using established characters but it clearly hasn’t been enough. I don’t think simply doing another Kelvin timeline movie that continues the previous three is going to fundamentally change that picture.

Exactly! His argument makes no sense on its head. If you believe Nemesis bombed because the general audience didn’t want to watch it, then clearly the characters didn’t matter to them. I don’t understand what he’s arguing?

Same thing with the Kelvin movies and Beyond. The general audience certainly came for the first two films, but we still know the MAJORITY of people who watched it were long time fans. There is a reason why the first film did $260 million in America but only $130 million in the rest of the world because like it or not, Trek’s biggest fan base is in America. Trek has never been big outside of it save for a few European countries and Australia. The first Kelvin film confirmed it. Now STID did much better for sure, at least on the international side but then when Beyond came out, the international audience basically slipped back to the same low levels of the first movie, just slightly better. But its why the film bombed, because like Nemesis before it, the general audience just didn’t have interest in the film like the first two and it was basically mostly the hardcore fans watching it again.

That’s the irony about this, the general audience proves over and over they are not loyal to any of these movies or the characters. It doesn’t matter to them, they seem to just go when there is a big enough hype and the movies get a good word of mouth. But having Kirk, Picard, Spock etc alone doesn’t guarantee they will show up like the hardcore fans will. So this argument you can’t have new characters with new fans makes no sense on its head. They don’t care who is in the movie, just that it’s a decent film. Nemesis proved that because it wasn’t. ;)

And even a movie like Beyond proved they still didn’t care even when it was a decent film because the hype of those movies had died off by then. It’s literally the reason why they are thinking to go another way with Hawley’s movie in the first place because they are clearly worried just having TOS characters by itself will guarantee the general audience will show up for it. That’s literally the entire point lol.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

sometimes you have to move forward or it becomes an exercise in nostalgia playing to fans only.

Every Star Trek movie ever made has used known cast and characters.

The same was true of Star Wars until they made Rogue One. And in my opinion Rogue One was a far superior movie to the three latest Skywalker Saga movies with their known, familiar characters.

Why pigeon-hole yourself into a “that’s the way it has always been done, so that’s the way we’ll do it now” situation? That kind of thinking gave us Voyager and Enterprise, both of which felt very much like TNG retreads.

Think outside the box!

Last edited 1 month ago by Thorny

There again the audience knew of the plot from the reference to the lives lost getting th info to destroy the Death Star during the first movie so it was not a completely new idea.

Fans did. But I’ve had to tell a lot of non die-hard fans asking about it in my library that’s what it was about. And you’re worried about the non-fan audience, right? Fans will go see it no matter what.

Besides, why can’t the standalone Star Trek movie be about the Earth-Romulan War, or the Dominion War, or first contact with the Tholians, or Matt Decker’s Constellation (keeping the Rogue One ‘doomed heroes’ idea) or any number of things which are pre-existing in the Trek universe like Rogue One. There are plenty of stories to be told that don’t need to be on the USS Enterprise. Again, think outside the box! The box is not your friend!

The fans liked Rogue One. It was essentially a fan movie, written by a special effects supervisor. The OBNOXIOUS “fangasm” at the start Red Letter’s review of the film was actually appropriate. It added very little to the mythos, in fact it creates more problems then it pretends to patch up. And critics were right in ranking it below the first two Skywalker sequels. It was a restless legs, shifty butt, can’t-sit-still-in-my-fracking-seat movie with some very flat characters and major pacing problems.

No, the “inside the box” mindset that brought us VOY and ENT is the same ’90s Trek assumption that we can just keep coming up with seven new characters and putting them on a bridge because audiences already liked TNG. It’s what you’re arguing for when you assume they should be able to do the same in a movie.

It’s going to take a level of intuition that most fans frankly don’t have in order to come up with a wholly original ST concept for the big screen.

Totally agree! I remember when TNG premiered and many people thought it would fail because it featured new characters and a new Enterprise. Yet it was not only a huge success, but TNG is STILL the highest rated Star Trek show out of all nine of them, (by modern audiences, decades after it ended). It was also the last Star Trek property that Gene Roddenberry wrote the playbook for. I believe that a new Trek film that’s true to Roddenberry’s vision of a brighter future for humanity, where mighty starships crewed by professional explorers investigate the wonders and mysteries of deep space would be welcomed — and would once again set Star Trek apart from the other sci-fi properties where the future is as bleak (or even worse) than the world is today. Star Trek used to set trends, not follow them. I really miss that. Isn’t the world “dark & edgy” enough right now, without depicting a future that’s just as bad, (or worse)?

Star Trek used to envision a better tomorrow that we could all aspire to, where the “drama” came from the amazing situations the Federation encountered, not from each other. When you consider the vast unknowns of deep space, there’s no limit to the imaginative and inspirational stories Star Trek could tell, if the intellectual property owners would stop hiring creatives that neither understand or even like what Star Trek was all about, (i.e., exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations and boldly going where no one has gone before).

I’d really welcome new creatives that know & love the decades of world-building in Star Trek, ones that respect the established look & feel of Star Trek continuity, and ones that don’t want to make Star Trek into Game of Thrones, (or Gotham in Space).

There’s already plenty of that out there, (i.e., a saturated market).

Last edited 1 month ago by Chuck Marble

I could care less about the “Kelvin universe”. It has become irredeemably stupid . The romance between Spock and Uhura is such a bad idea, the destruction of Vulcan was idiotic , the whole undertaking should just be jettisoned Bring on Tarantino or Hawley

While I would love a new Trek movie, with Trek currently doing pretty well on TV (regardless of what a vocal minority would like us to believe), a new Trek film is far less important than it was when the first Kelvin-verse film was released. As such, I hope Hawley is given the green light, and given the time to get this right – we haven’t had a truly good Trek film since at least First Contact, which was 24 years ago!

Respectfully, streaming services, (including CBS All Access), don’t release viewership numbers. They just keep saying Discovery & Picard are big hits, without providing any context. But just this past week, CBS started airing Discovery for free on network television. Now that we can actually see the ratings in comparison to other shows, we find that the premier episode this past Thursday night, (“The Vulcan Salute”), was beaten in the ratings …by reruns and game shows. Considering it’s the most expensive television show ever made, and people are clamoring for entertainment, I suspect the Viacom/CBS executives are not too pleased with it’s performance, (ranked 13 out of 13).

If you don’t believe it, feel free to check it out for yourself: https://www.spoilertv.com/2020/09/ratings-for-thursday-24th-september.html

Last edited 1 month ago by Chuck Marble

It is not ranked 13th out of 13. The shows are grouped into three blocks by air time (8PM to 10PM). The show did come in 3rd place of its time slot but there are some other shows listed above it that actually have lower ratings. Since I’m not from the US I don’t have context to judge how bad the rating is. While it’s the first time the show is aired on free TV (except for “The Vulcan Salute” which did run on CBS TV back in 2017) this is essentially a rerun . I expect that most Trek fans (the most likely target audience) have probably seen the show by now or decided they’re not going watch anything by Kurtzman and Co.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the most expensive television show ever made”. Discovery may be the most expensive Star Trek show so far (maybe tied with Picard) but I’m pretty sure it’s not the most expensive TV show in general. Even a comedy show like the Big Bang Theory seemed to have a higher budget per episode.

The guy says all the right things. Shame his vision will probably never see the light of day.

While I like the Kelvin movies, they all go the same way basically, practically hitting the same beats. This music video hits it right on the nose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDJqldOdwPE

They are fun but it’s too much slick action and the same style over and over and over again. Would love to see something….different.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Hawley has a point.

Unfortunately I felt the same way about the TNG movies.

In both cases the stylistic sameness would have been forgiven if they were making an actual trilogy… but they weren’t.

The TNG movies didn’t cost $150-200 million though. That’s the difference. The Kelvin movies got stale fast because the same style that got a lot of people on board in the first movie had gotten very tired by just the third one. TNG movies certainly had their problems, but they weren’t made with the idea of trying to make a billion dollars either, it was mostly for its fanbase.

This is why they are thinking to go a different way with the next film, they realize it’s just not a guarantee another Kelvin film will make any real money and they are probably just too much to make, hence trying to get Pine to take less.

Thing is money is being spent in such a clearly silly way with the Kelvin films. I think restraining the budget might actually lead to increased creativity and also improved focus on story and characters, probably anyway.

And I think that’s probably what they were trying to do with the Hemsworth movie and why they tried to get him and Pine to lower their salaries. My guess is once they couldn’t make that happen, it kind of sealed the fate of future Kelvin films going forward. Like to be proven wrong, but it’s probably just much easier starting fresh with a new cast and new director who can work on a budget. Probably why Tarantino and Hawley were considered since Tarantino films are on the lower end and Hawley comes from a TV background.

But these films should’ve never costed more than $150 million. Even that is pretty crazy for a Star Trek film, but I guess Paramount convinced themselves they were going to turn into Transformers box office if they just threw more money at them. Any of us could’ve told them they were wasting their money.

Last edited 29 days ago by Tiger2

All you need to do is look to one of Paramount’s other franchises for guidance. The last Transformers movie, Bumblebee, was made for about 120MM (give or take, depending on where you source the information), and it made a bit over 450MM worldwide. Paramount will make Trek movies all day long that perform like this. Until a production house steps up and inks this kind of deal, we will be kept waiting.

To be fair, both CHRIS PINE and SIMON PEGG have stated in past interviews and press junkets that they’d love to see a more cerebral approach to the Kelvin Trek movies, and delve into what it means to be “explorers”.

And then Pegg wrote us Fast And Furious In Space.

Star Trek beyond

Precisely.

I think Pegg really tried to make a more introspective movie, but just like Orci and every other screen writer before them, Paramount has certain demands. There is probably a long list of things that has to be included in the movie one way or the other just like most franchise films. MCU directors for example always seem to applaud Marvel because they say Marvel gives them the freedom to make whatever they want. And yes that’s probably true up to a DEGREE, but we also know they have to find a way to include story elements from other films, cross over characters, a number of action scenes, etc. So they may get to write the movie in their language but certain elements has to be included or there is probably no movie.

I think in Hawley’s case, its the same idea. Maybe the difference probably being his movie is going to cost a lot less than the others so it can’t afford to be Fast and Furious in Space like Beyond could.

Or maybe the studio is just rethinking the entire Star Trek/Star Wars/Mission Impossible direction of the Kelvin movies and wants to try something different? That would be nice…and refreshing.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head in every way. Fully agreed with all your points.

Thanks dude! :)

Beyond underperformed a lot so that’s why there has been zero urgency to make the next film. Another film will happen. It’s more a question of when.

My post said nothing about the next film, I was simply talking about how much a control a screenwriter really have in these big budget franchise films.

And I have said that over and over again. It’s not a question of if we get another film, but when. But that when is probably looking much farther off than some of us thought now. And my guess is it will probably be with a totally new cast (new or old characters) if nothing is announced in the next year.

There’s a world of difference between what a creative individual says interview, expressing their opinions, and what your employer tells you to do. Lets not forget that both opinions can be correct with that statement.

Last edited 28 days ago by Phil

I’m not so sure introducing new characters for a Star Trek movie makes much sense. At least, the franchise has never done that. So far, there have been three movie series, two were direct continuations of TV series, one was a reboot with new actors but familiar characters.
This would be the first time, the “pilot” of a TV show is actually a movie. I know it has been done countless times with other franchise starters and standalone movies but I’d call it “daring” to say the least.

I’m not sure this could have any mass appeal. Even TNG didn’t do too well on the big screen even though there was a very popular TV show going on…

For casual movie goers, Trek is Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise on her ongoing mission. Batman, Spider-Man, Superman… all have predefined settings, characters and missions. Straying from those hardly ever works…

There was a time just thinking about doing anything without TOS was suicidal. That was over 30 years ago and it worked out just fine. Point being, no one is going to know until they at least try it. Imagine if people thought Star Trek would never work without the original characters and where the franchise would be today.

Taking chances is oddly why Trek is still relevant today.

I believe the franchise would be in a place not unlike the CBM genre. Without the success of TNG, TOS would probably still BE Star Trek.
But it would be not the original cast but the set of characters that would be front and center. We would have gone through numerous reboots through the decades. They would have made tightly linked prequels (Academy years) and sequels (sons and daughters of Kirk & company, Excelsior Captain Sulu spin-off), more animated spin-offs and reboots…

As much as I like the 90s spin-offs, a more TOS-focused Trek franchise would be equally interesting…

Strange New Worlds is the closest thing to TOS in this day and age. Discovery and Picard are obviously not TOS but I would like to see a TOS style show for a modern 21st century audience.

Yes in other words Star Trek would’ve just been Superman and got different versions of that over and over and over again for decades instead of DC as a more expansive, interlocking and interesting universe that added many more characters and settings with more characters like Batman, Flash, Wonder Woman, etc.

That would’ve bored me to death and I been watching Star Trek since the 70s. If it was just TOS, it would just be a product. Today it’s a brand, one that has reached a lot more people because it has become so varied over the decades thankfully.

That said, of course I would’ve still watched it. But I wouldn’t be anywhere close to the fan I am today if we were getting news of the fifth version of TOS coming to the theaters soon. I would definitely be a fan, but I wouldn’t be as invested now.

TOS is the backbone of Star Trek. Trek has gone far away from it’s roots. Let’s revisit TOS in the internet age.

No one said otherwise. Only saying is Star Trek can be so much more today as it has been for 30 years now and it seem pretty short sighted a 50+ year old brand can’t have a movie with new characters when there was a time having ANY new characters at all felt blasphemous to the fans. I think we gone far beyond that point now lol. Star Trek has proven over and over again it doesn’t have to be about one crew, setting or even premise. Fans will watch it as long as it’s good and interesting.

I get him, but don’t want a new movie in which the crew start out again and just as they take their seats we have to wait until Star Trek 5. TV is going to do that with SNW

I for once would like to see a good old fashion battle between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. You can have a great telling story with heart and still have great battle scenes.

Would be interesting to know more about Tarantino’s idea. Has anyone reached out to Mark Smith the writer? Is he refusing to discuss the details?

SNW is the only thing we got. This movie will never happen.

Wow. Ninja not optimistic.

This is a litmus test that shows how discouraged fans, especially younger ones, are getting with this seemingly endless cycle of film in development / film development suspended stories.

I like Noah’s ideas but lets not get our hopes up. Paramount doesn’t want something akin to the provocative Trek of yesteryear.

I have to hand to him for promoting the “idea” of what the ST script would consist of…it does sound interesting, and to include a different crew/ship would be a nice change, considering we already have STD, Picard and the forcoming STBNW, I can see this to be more geared towards another series much little the previously mentioned.
I just don’t think this is movie / theatrical worthy at this juncture…

If details were given on the timeline/time frame that this took place, then it would be more prone to support.
Personally, I think there is a huge opportunity being missed and overlooked in the OT timeline when ST:TUD ended and when STTNG started…there is so much that could be covered and told… I was always hoping for the adventures of Captain Sulu and the Excelsior! ;-)

All well and good but why introduce a new crew just for a movie? Don’t fix what’s not broken, Noah.

It time to move on from OS, TNG.

Wow, an intelligent science- fiction Star Trek story about professional crews exploring the wonders of deep space vs yet another dumbed down science-fantasy “Fast and Furious in Space” action story, where the “drama” comes from mindless soap-opera conflicts? Sound like the Gene Roddenberry formula for Star Trek that worked so well, for so long (think TOS & TNG).

Dear Paramount: If you do this, (and re-establish the Trek continuity that JJ Abrams & Alex Kurtzman threw out an airlock), you’d likely regain the millions of multiple generation / life-long Trek fans that you’ve lost since 2009. If it’s a well-written & compelling sci-fi adventure story, who knows … you might even be able to start making lots of additional money selling Star Trek merchandise again!

Considering CBS is now showing Kurtzman Trek, (Discovery), on network television for free, and yet the premier episode just got beat in the ratings by reruns of game shows, logic would dictate that a major course correction is in order, (and long overdue). Sounds like Noah Hawley has the right idea here, (i.e., a return to Star Trek’s roots). I’d gladly pay to see a smart Star Trek story about space exploration again …because “It’s Been a Long Time”!

Wow Discovery didn’t do that well for it’s premiere episode on CBS?

How bad did it do? I’m guessing at least 4-5 million for it’s premiere. Before you said this, I thought it could get somewhere between 7-8 million but I’m guessing that didn’t happen. But if it’s around 4 million at least, its not TOO bad for a show that’s second run on AA, but yeah not a great opening for one of their most expensive and hyped shows. Hopefully did a little better than that though.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

Regret to report this Tiger2, but Variety says that the premiere got just 1.7 million viewers.

The thing is, I keep seeing folks complaining here and elsewhere that the new Trek is only available on streaming. Which tells me that the messaging that it was coming to broadcast wasn’t clear enough with the S3 streaming premiere promotion running concurrently.

I’m really wondering how many of the fans who won’t pay for streaming have missed the fact that S1 is available on broadcast.

Last edited 1 month ago by TG47

Are you serious?????

That is astronomically low. Especially for a premiere show on CBS on a Thursday night. I couldn’t even imagine the show getting anything less than 4 million and it didn’t even get half of that lol.

People have been whining they don’t want to watch the show on a paid platform, now they have the chance to watch as they always dreamed, on a network and either most couldn’t be bothered or maybe like you said bad marketing.

I have to say though, at least here in L.A., I seen quite a few commercials and ads for it. Maybe many people did know and just wasn’t that interested through its poor word of mouth.

Next week should tell us more. Maybe it will go up? It has to if they expect it to run on that channel for the entire season. I know CBS is desperate for content like a lot of networks right now, but they would probably do better airing reruns of Big Brother in that slot if it can’t get to at least 3 million viewers.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tiger2

they would probably do better airing reruns of Big Brother in that slot

Big Brother was on at 8 PM (doesn’t even seem to be a rerun) and even that only got 4.2 million viewers. So I’m not sure how much better a rerun of Big Brother would have done in Discovery’s place.
Also, the Programming Insider website reports a median age of 63.3 years for Discovery viewership on CBS. But even the “youngest” show on network TV that night had a median age of 55.1. Seems to me that younger audiences have basically abandoned network TV.

I knew television, particularly CBS, skews to the older audience but that’s brutal for advertising revenue.

Further thoughts:

1) Good to know that all those older Trek fans were willing to give Discovery a try . If the median age is 63.3, it has to have been drawing in viewers who saw TOS in first-run as teens and young adults. Wild.

2) I’m wondering if CBS is running episodes at a second time late at night so that those who want to join late can catch up.

‘trek’ has never really done well on network tv, Voy on UPN excepted.
TNG got huge ratings but was syndicated.
and shows set in space, on spaceships do way better on cable, streaming.

I did find it odd trekmovie.com didn’t set an article about it airing on free CBS so that us patient cheapskates could comment on the censored presentation, etc. in an arena not spoiling the unaired episodes to come.

Last edited 28 days ago by Disinvited

I pretty sure I read on Trekmovie that CBS would be airing season 1 on free TV. I was aware of it and I don’t even live in the US (so can’t watch CBS).

They’ll never sell a movie with an unknown crew.

if they can people on board with new characters in the spin shows then they can do it this time for the movies.
and legacy characters may appear in this way anyway.

That’s a problem because the movies with a known crew aren’t selling enough either.

Unless its a star line up

Like Tom Hanks as the captain :)

Any Star Trek project / movie is better than 3 Star Wars rehashing the same exact story.

interesting to me (and if they were to read this, to Paramount as well) that this is the thread that is getting so much more response than all the rest recently. I think this does indicate that the core would be responsive to a genuine TREK movie made by a skilled and thoughtful filmmaker, regardless of cast and budget.

For years I was saying that a non-SF/FX guy, a writer/director like the guy who did THE STATION AGENT and THE VISITOR, should be doing TREK. As it turned out, that guy did make a foray into fantasy, with the disaster of the GoT pilot that was largely remade, but I think the concept is still the same – get somebody with a smart Meyer-level POV (rather than some franchise-king-sized ‘vision’) and let him run with it.

I was noting how active this thread is too.

While many of us have movie-speculation and “projects in development” fatigue, Hawley’s idea has resonated.

I’ve mused before that the idea of some “Long Treks” made-for-streaming movies or mini-series in different eras, with or without established characters, may be a viable option.

Like Short Treks, it could be a way to take risks and experiment without committing to a set number of products per year. It could also be another way to minimize gaps in the schedule and reduce churn for the streaming service.

Not all stories would need big or new vfx. I’d definitely watch.

I think a fifth TNG movie would have involved Q, in what almost certainly would have been the last TNG movie.
Part of me feels that had Nemesis done half decent business another film would have been greenlit. I’m thinking Berman was planning for it and was shocked (maybe to his own ignorance) when Nemesis basically bombed big time.

Didn’t they basically set up Nemesis as the final TNG film during its advertising campaign? I’m sure they weren’t expecting it to do that badly but it seems to me they were at least thinking about moving on to something else.

Not at all, they were emphasizing how we’d get something fresh and new, more than what we could see on television, but not the end of the line.

If I remember correctly, Patrick had suggested a Captains movie if Nem was successful

Just had a look at the trailer again. The tagline towards the end is: “This December a generation’s final journey begins”. I guess the “final journey” could have continued in another movie if Nemesis had done better ;-)

There were plans to have characters from the other shows along side TNG crew in a further movie if it had done better box office.

Exactly. I feel the important word here is ‘begins’.
It seems to me that Nemesis was hoped to be part of a two act play.
In the final scene in Nemesis, B4 kind of almost hits you on nose with a tease to the audience that Data is actually somehow part of B4 in some way, reaserting himself. And of cause there are all sorts of plot threads that are dangling, such as the Romulans and power vacuum left by Shinzons actions.
It would have been interesting.
Q could somehow have factored into the equation!
Anything possible in Star Trek lol

That would have meant a much stronger serialization across movies than the TNG movies had had up to that point. I’m not saying it’s impossible they would have done that but all the others were independent one-offs (except for the main crew returning in each, of course).

So he wants to make a Next Generation type episode like movie where all the action takes place over an intercom in the captains ready room.

I was thinking more City on the Edge of Forever, The Trouble with Tribbles, Measure of a Man, Drumhead, Chains of Command, and of course Sub Rosa.

Actually doing PHONE BOOTH in the TREKVERSE would be excellent if you had the material and the properly inventive creatives … better than PHONE BOOTH turned out, by far. Hearing screams off-monitor and seeing somebody rage in their helplessness, turmoil reflected in the vertical window … not that I think you’re right in your assumption about Hawley’s film at all.

Can’t be more boring than the crew staring at the viewscreen for hours in TMP ;-)

I think the question is HOW they do it. I STILL think some sort of story that undoes Generations, using de-aging tech to get Shatner’s age appropriate, is the best story out there. You can do that in a Vistor/City on the Edge/Inner Light type story. It can have action, but it could be anchored in the Kirk/Spock friendship. I wouldn’t even care if it were animated.