Star Trek 14

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

If the JJ Abrams trilogy is done, what will the next movie be about? How about we break the mold and introduce a new ship (an Enterprise or some other ship) and pick characters that serve the story instead of X show's cast on the big screen.

We could use original actors or recast them if need be. One example, young Picard on the Stargazer. Another idea, elderly Captain Sulu's final mission on the Excelsior. What about a Voyager movie? Rather than in the mold of TOS or TNG films, this would be taking a scattered crew and reuniting them, because plot.

Think Trek 14 will happen? If not Part 4 to the Abrams trilogy, what do you want to see as a 14th movie?

 

[Cyrus]

The guy who is doing it, Noah Hawley, has implied he may use new characters.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I reckon they should either do Sulu on the Excelsior or the Kelvin-verse version of TNG.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Will Kelvin-verse TNG even exist? Massive changes in Kirk's time period already which will amplify as time advances.

 

[Precious Tritium]

Will Kelvin-verse TNG even exist? Massive changes in Kirk's time period already which will amplify as time advances.

I suppose you could say the same about the Mirror Universe. With such colossal changes going all the way back to First Contact, what are the chances that the entire crew of the Enterprise or Deep Space Nine would still end up together on the other side?

In the immortal words of Basil Exposition, "I suggest you don't worry about those things and just enjoy yourself."

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

I let the mirror universe slide, because it exits parallel to the prime universe. Wirh time travel, when you radically change the past about 100+ years ago; the future you came from will most certainly be unrecognizable.

Kirk's father dead, the Kelvin destroyed, Kirk joined Starfleet later than before, Vulcan destroyed, Khan found by someone else, the existence of the Vengeance, Pike killed instead of crippled by radiation, and... you get the idea.

Imagine those changes rippling across time for a hundred years. Will Picard even be born in this timeline? I much prefer this timeline leading to an entirely new future instead of Abrams TNG. It leaves the door open for more originality.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I question how much an entirely new set of characters would go over with the average viewing public. Enough to drive a box office blockbuster like ST'09? To be honest: I doubt it. The "entirely new characters" theme has worked well precisely twice: TNG and DS9. VOY was derivative and lasted by virtue of inertia that was waning from franchise fatigue. ENT was the death-knell.

I mean, even the "entirely new characters" of Discovery needed an infusion of "entirely known characters" to keep it fresh.

I think the average viewer will want to throw down their money to see Kirk, Spock, and/or Picard. Not the adventures of Captain Raymond Luxury-Yacht (pronounced Throat Wobbler Mangrove).... though in retrospect, I'd totally pay to see that.

 

[fireproof78]

Honestly, bring back Kirk and
Spock and have them crew a bunch of rookies. Set up a literal next generation.

 

[Dukhat]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Paramount will want to recast the TOS crew yet again, and make yet another reboot Trek, rather than a new crew on a new ship. Why? Because that’s what Hollywood does, as they don’t seem to have a creative bone in their bodies anymore. Not to mention that I get the impression that the TOS characters are the only marketable version of Star Trek on the big screen.

 

[Lord Garth]

It depends on the star power. I think it's wide-open right now if they do it on a lower budget. The bigger the budget, the less options they have, and the "safer" they have to go.

What do I want to see? TV Trek is satisfying for me right now. Picard is giving me the TNG Movies I never knew I wanted.

 

[Dukhat]

I really don’t want to see a low-budget Trek feature film just so they can keep costs down. They might as well make it a made-for-TV movie or straight-to-DVD production if they were going to go that route.

 

[Lord Garth]

I really don’t want to see a low-budget Trek feature film just so they can keep costs down. They might as well make it a made-for-TV movie or straight-to-DVD production if they were going to go that route.

You're probably right. In that case, the smart money would be to go with another TOS Reboot, like you said. I can't get too excited about it, because the other reboot wasn't too long ago (in my mind) but nowadays they're doing reboots fast and furious, not to be confused with Fast & Furious.

 

[Danlav05]

With everything going on in TV at the minute - we know there are about half a dozen shows in development, and maybe more ideas in the works, where would a movie stand? And how could it stand out as a smash hit?

ADD:-- How about an animated Trek movie? That would be something new!

 

[eschaton]

What Trek has never done is "man vs. nature" in a movie. Thus I think something new and fresh would be a straight-up Trek disaster movie, with no personified antagonist.

Maybe subspace starts breaking down across an entire sector due to the use of warp drives? All sorts of temporal anomalies, planets turning inside out, etc?

 

[F. King Daniel]

I let the mirror universe slide, because it exits parallel to the prime universe. Wirh time travel, when you radically change the past about 100+ years ago; the future you came from will most certainly be unrecognizable.

Kirk's father dead, the Kelvin destroyed, Kirk joined Starfleet later than before, Vulcan destroyed, Khan found by someone else, the existence of the Vengeance, Pike killed instead of crippled by radiation, and... you get the idea.

Imagine those changes rippling across time for a hundred years. Will Picard even be born in this timeline? I much prefer this timeline leading to an entirely new future instead of Abrams TNG. It leaves the door open for more originality.

Realistically, yes. But every alternate universe ever shown in Trek (and 99.9% of fiction) has the same people interacting at the same time in the same place despite massively different circumstances. So of course there's be a Kelvinprise-D with Picard, Beverly and the rest.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

My point is, Trek needs to take the audience somewhere new, not give us more of the same.

 

[Dukhat]

My point is, Trek needs to take the audience somewhere new, not give us more of the same.

The producers of Star Trek will give us whatever they believe is going to make them the most money, based on what they perceive as what their audience wants. They’re not interested in taking a risk and making something ‘new,’ because they don’t believe that’s what the audience wants. And, quite frankly, just what does ‘new’ mean anyway? Something that’s so unrecognizable as Star Trek that it might as well be a different show?

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

This is why Star Trek crashed in 2005.

Something new... The 2009 reboot is a good example. Picard, bringing a popular character back and giving him his own show. This is also a good example.

 

[Dukhat]

This is why Star Trek crashed in 2005.

Something new... The 2009 reboot is a good example. Picard, bringing a popular character back and giving him his own show. This is also a good example.

I’m going to have to ask you again, what is your definition of ‘new’?

 

[fireproof78]

This is why Star Trek crashed in 2005.

Something new... The 2009 reboot is a good example. Picard, bringing a popular character back and giving him his own show. This is also a good example.

Picard is not new. The themes were well done but its definitely not the newest thing. And with all the talk of bringing more TNG crew familiar is the selling point.