• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek 14

I’m going to have to ask you again, what is your definition of ‘new’?
Setting a show on a space station. Hurling a ship beyond the Federation and known aliens, and giving it the ability to land. Introducing new ships that are not the Enterprise. Introducing new aliens, because space is big. Picard is new in that the emphasis is on the lead character rather than a grandiose ship and crew. Anyone can come and go on Picard so long as the show is about him. If Patrick backs out, rename the ship Picard, promote someone to main character, and have that person cary on the ideals of Picard.
 
My point is, Trek needs to take the audience somewhere new, not give us more of the same.

Setting a show on a space station. Hurling a ship beyond the Federation and known aliens, and giving it the ability to land. Introducing new ships that are not the Enterprise. Introducing new aliens, because space is big. Picard is new in that the emphasis is on the lead character rather than a grandiose ship and crew. Anyone can come and go on Picard so long as the show is about him. If Patrick backs out, rename the ship Picard, promote someone to main character, and have that person cary on the ideals of Picard.

Then what are you complaining about? By your definition, every show and movie since TOS is ‘new.’
 
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying I don't want to see a remake of TNG. I'm fine with a radically different Abrams version if it runs with the alternate timeline concept.

Picard is Admiral, Riker commands the Enterprise, Riker and Troi never broke up, Worf's dad is alive and Worf was raised Klingon, Data still happens, but make him different. Jack Crusher is a main character, but we SEE him die. We see what that does to Beverly and Wesley.

Anyway...

I'm more interested in building on Abrams Trek where Beyond left off. As for TNG, I'm morw interested in filling in the gaps. Young Picard on the Stargazer, for example.
 
Would Trek fans go see the movie if it didn't have characters from TNG or TOS regardless of universe? I'd certainly watch it, but would I go to the theater with my kid? Maybe. But what can they really do with the movie franchise if they don't get away from that? Maybe they could do some cool mission movie set during the Romulan wars or something. It has to be a big budget popcorn flick to even stand a chance against Disney.

I am expecting Vin Diesel as NuPicard with a captain's yacht chase scene and a bunch of shit that is fun once for many, but ripped apart by the same people who can't stand anything new.
 
Will Kelvin-verse TNG even exist? :shrug: Massive changes in Kirk's time period already which will amplify as time advances. :crazy:

That's PIC, based on elements referenced in ST2009?

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.

Which is proof they are making these shows for established hardcore fans first and foremost, casuals who remember a handful of words second - maybe it's the other way around, casuals first then the established ones next as there are more of the casuals than the hardcore ones. Either way, one doesn't do "small universe syndrome" to a bunch of strangers. For those who never cared for "Grease" and "Teen Wolf". What would make them flock to their sequels, no matter how long after the first they were made?
 
That's PIC, based on elements referenced in ST2009?
Picard follows up on the future Spock left, not the alternate timeline Nero created.

Well, the DS9 crew showed up in The Q Gambit story in the ongoing Kelvin comic book series.
So what, Q brought the DS9 back in time to a parallel reality? Didn't we already see this in ENT "In a Mirror Darkly" with the TOS Defiant... going back in time, to another reality?

There's no way the DS9 screw as we know them are from the Kelvin timeline.
 
Last edited:
Out of the new series, there is certainly cinematic potential in "Strange New worlds" for obvious reasons... But that is so long-term consideration....
 
Disney has announced a one year delay for the next Star Wars and Avatar movies. So even if the next Trek movie had been announced it would now be delayed.

The longest hiatus between Star Trek movies was 6.5 years between Nemesis and ST09. It has now been 4 years since Beyond was released and it will be at least another 2 years before this movie is released, so that record will probably be broken.
 
Disney has announced a one year delay for the next Star Wars and Avatar movies. So even if the next Trek movie had been announced it would now be delayed.

The longest hiatus between Star Trek movies was 6.5 years between Nemesis and ST09. It has now been 4 years since Beyond was released and it will be at least another 2 years before this movie is released, so that record will probably be broken.
And this is the first time since Nemesis that studio has serious headache what crew/setting is the next movie going to be about...
 
Not every movie has to rival Disney.
It doesn't have to "rival" Disney, it has to carve out a slice of the market served very well by Disney with Marvel, Star Wars, Avatar, etc. otherwise it will be consumed at home by people who might have seen it in the theaters instead. My assumption is that Paramount wants to make a lot of money off this franchise in the theaters, and then more at home. If this movie is not successful do you see them doing another one? Do you see people paying to see it in the theaters if it doesn't have a big budget and/or some star power? Can you cite some recent examples of sci-fi movies that have been successful that have not been event movies? Or can you give some reason as to why Paramount would devote resources to something that they don't want to be a massive blockbuster?
 
TV. No more movies. Star Trek movie were fun, but have never been as good as Star Trek on TV. If they want to go 'cinematic', do a tv movie like the pilots or Dark Frontier and series finales. Most of the series finales anyway.
 
I want both.

IMHO the problem with Trek movies is every single one since TUC has been basically identical - an effort to more or less redo TWOK with a central personified villian that "The Captain" has to defeat.

If Trek can go back to not having "defeat the bad guy" plots in every movie, I'd be okay with more movie Trek.
 
TV. No more movies. Star Trek movie were fun, but have never been as good as Star Trek on TV. If they want to go 'cinematic', do a tv movie like the pilots or Dark Frontier and series finales. Most of the series finales anyway.

I’d say Trek II-VI, with the exception of V, were peak Star Trek. II-IV has been the only time serialization has really worked. I think the All-Access shows could learn something from those movies.

That said, I agree that Trek’s true home is on TV.
 
IMHO the problem with Trek movies is every single one since TUC has been basically identical - an effort to more or less redo TWOK with a central personified villian that "The Captain" has to defeat.

If Trek can go back to not having "defeat the bad guy" plots in every movie, I'd be okay with more movie Trek.
Yes, TWOK's shadow is ridiculously long. But, I think there room for Trek films and shows to explore a wide variety of stories.
 
It's amazing how wide ranging the storytelling was in the first six Trek movies, and now bland it's been since then.

TMP - V'Ger was arguably an antagonist, but misunderstood, not a villain. Epic stakes to the conflict, since Earth was in danger.
TWOK - Khan became a classic villain, but the actual conflict of the movie is personal and small-bore. Genesis Device or no, there's no real evidence that Khan wants to do anything other than fuck Kirk up. And of course there is the underlying theme of growing old and changing throughout the movie.
TSFS - There is a villain (Kruge) but arguably until the end of the movie it takes a backseat to...well...see the movie title. Stakes are arguably a bit higher, since Kruge wants to use the Genesis Device as a weapon, but there is no direct threat to the Earth or the Federation during the course of the movie.
TVH - While the probe puts Earth in existential danger, it's basically just the MacGuffin to set up the story. Certainly not an antagonist - the movie is a comedy and lacks a real central antagonist.
TFF - Not a good movie, but it should be noted that while Sybok serves as the film's antagonist, he's actually not a villain, and the side plot with the Klingons is totally forgettable. Arguably the end of the movie had pretty high stakes if "God" escaped, but that wasn't the tension of the film, so I don't think it counts as epic stakes.
TUC - Chang was an interesting, complex antagonist, arguably a villain. But it was a strange movie structurally speaking, because if the heroes lose, it's basically status quo - the fight is actually to improve things, not keep them the same. Also it of course involves aspects of murder mystery and political thriller, which is not something movie Trek did before (and hasn't really done since)

Then, the movies start going downhill structurally:

GEN - Picard (and Kirk) must defeat Soran to save Veridian IV, a pre-warp planet. Oh, and the Duras Sisters show up for some reason. Small-ish stakes (planet we've never heard of).
FC - Picard meets "his Khan" in the form of the Borg Queen. The gang must all team up to reset the timeline and save Earth. Epic stakes, classic personified villain which arguably began the process of ruining the Borg. IMHO the stuff with Cochrane on Earth worked much better because it was just seeing the rest of the cast working collaboratively to overcome a problem.
INS - The TNG crew travel work to save 300 hippie squatters from their evil relatives. Horribly forgettable villain in the form of Ru'afo who wasn't even needed - it would have been better as a moral quandry internal to Starfleet, as a "man versus himself" plot focusing on Picard's conflict between duty and justice. Though that's more TV Trek than Movie Trek.
NEM - Picard meets "his Khan" for a second time, this time for realz. He's like an evil clone! And he wants to destroy Earth, just because!!!
ST09 - Nero destroys Vulcan, and he will destroy Earth too, because he hates Spock that goddamned much.
STID - Khan literally comes back, though the movie is muddled whether he or Admiral Marcus is actually the antagonist. Marcus is the one threatening Earth with war for his own purposes, while Khan just wants to go home. Yet the film plays to the personal animus between Khan Spock/Kirk. I think it would have worked a lot better if Khan ended up being an ally throughout the film, as it would have subverted expectations rather than seeming like a shallow TWOK clone.
BEY - Krall was a sucky generic villain until the end of the movie when we finally discover his motivation. I don't think the movie could have worked structurally without him, but they shouldn't have been so wedded to the "twist" that they kept us in the dark regarding his true goals until the end. At least the stakes were modestly lowered after three movies in a row where Earth was in serious danger.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top