Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek 4 (14)


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 1701D

1701D

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 04 February 2017 - 03:59 PM

I completed a Kelvin Universe Star Trek movie marathon the other day and I wanted to pose this question:

What would make Star Trek 4 a critical and financial success?

This is a hard question to answer for Star Trek fans who either think the Kelvin movies are lame and aren't representative of what Star Trek is, or thought Star Trek Beyond was what these movies should be.

The fact is, these movies need something to boost profits and to make them a genuine contender and rival to some of the biggest movie franchises out there if they are to continue in their current form.

Now, putting aside what you think Star Trek is or should be, putting aside your fan side, I genuinely would love to know people's opinions and ideas on what would revitalise this very controversial Star Trek movie series to take it from mediocrity to genuine rival to let's say Marvel or DC or Star Wars.

What will get people talking about Star Trek Beyond it's fanbase.

#2 s8film40

s8film40

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 04 February 2017 - 06:00 PM

Well the simple answer is it would need to be less Star Trek. Star Trek in it's purest form is not going to appeal to the public in a broad way like Marvel, DC or Star Wars. It needs to have more action and a have a central hero to focus on. I think the biggest factor holding any Star Trek movie back from finacial success is the crew, ship and exploration dynamic. Those three things need to be avoided as much as possible, if they can very quickly dispose of all the other characters and get just Kirk and maybe Spock and McCoy together fighting the bad guys the general public will eat it up.



#3 1701D

1701D

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 04 February 2017 - 08:12 PM

Do you not think though that these have been three movies, regardless of what people may think of how they relate to Star Trek, are movies that should be making 500 - 1billion dollars but aren't because of the name Star Trek?

Personally I think there's plenty in these movies for Trekkies to be angry about but nothing I can see that would stop them from being hugely successful beyond how successful they've been, making in excess of $800 million at least but the name Star Trek and the stigma that still surrounds that name.

Or is it simply because Star Trek is fundamentally a TV series and that's where it's popularity lies?

#4 s8film40

s8film40

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 04 February 2017 - 09:07 PM

Do you not think though that these have been three movies, regardless of what people may think of how they relate to Star Trek, are movies that should be making 500 - 1billion dollars but aren't because of the name Star Trek?

Personally I think there's plenty in these movies for Trekkies to be angry about but nothing I can see that would stop them from being hugely successful beyond how successful they've been, making in excess of $800 million at least but the name Star Trek and the stigma that still surrounds that name.

Or is it simply because Star Trek is fundamentally a TV series and that's where it's popularity lies?

Sure I think there's a bit of a stigma to the Star Trek name but the bigger issue is the science fiction theme which is where that stigma comes from in the first place. Science fiction is never going to be as mainstream of a genre as action, drama or comedy. If you want a big summer blockbuster you have to go for action typically. What they've done with Star Trek sometimes successfully and sometimes not as successfully is try to balance converting Star Trek into an action movie while giving the fans a little something as well. The hope with this is you draw in the mainstream audience while still getting the bonus of the fanbase. The reality is the mainstream audience is never going to really respond strongly to Star Trek unless it's successfully converted into your typical summer action blockbuster. Of course at that point it's arguably not really Star Trek anymore. I think the point I'm trying to make is that in order for Star Trek to be a big huge mega hit it essentially has to sell its soul. It's a balance and usually Star Trek falls somewhere in the middle not the movie of the year but still delivers a little bit for the fans. I think if they want to push Star Trek into the mega blockbuster status they need to completely abandon what the fans want. I think Star Trek has more freedom to be it's true self in television and is better for us as fans in televesion.



#5 Alex

Alex

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 878 posts

Posted 06 February 2017 - 12:00 AM

It's really simple: Star Trek shouldn't even be attempting to compete with so–called "Summer Blockbusters" that are typically action–driven popcorn flicks by virtue of the fact that it's never done well when distilled to being nothing more than an aforementioned action flick. Trek movies have typically had winter release dates prior to Trek XI, and one major reason for that was that they were competing with "prestiege" films that typically required a bit more thought, but could also throw in a bit of action under the right circumstances. More importantly though, they weren't shooting for best picture nominations, but for technical awards in categories like sound editing and sound design, prosthetics, VFX, musical score, etc., which are areas where Sci–Fi typically excels, and where Trek now only competed, but occasionally won awards! (Actually, "occasionally" is a bit of an understatement, the TV shows frequently won technical awards, and a lot of the films picked up technical awards as well.)

 

Out of the past three films Trek XI made exactly what it should have, STID should have tanked much harder but didn't because it was coasting on Trek XI's success, and Beyond should have been a commercial success, but was photon torpedoed by the negative reaction to STID, and by circumstances completely out of its control, namely the fact that it was released in the single worst year for reboots, spin–offs, and sequels in well over a decade, and that it was released right at the height of comparable reboot movies tanking. The initial trailer didn't do the film any favors either and definitely sent at least some of its target audience home. In contrast, Rogue One just barely managed to avoid a horribly timed release as the hatred of reboots that plagued 2016 had started to subside by the time that it came out, and it was able to coast off of the success of TFA, (despite not being tied to it plot–wise,) and it was still a great film that was extremely well executed. Oh, and Rogue One was greeted largely with skepticism until it actually started making buckets of money like "numbered" Star Wars films, while Beyond was assumed to be a film that was just going to make buckets of money until Paramount saw similar films getting slaughtered, at which point they adjusted their box office expectations downward quite significantly prior to Beyond's release, causing Beyond to exceed said expectations.

 

Trek XIV is supposedly already in the works at some level, already has a script, and already has most of the cast signed on to appear in it, (it might actually be the entire cast at this point, but I think one or two people might be missing, supposedly Pine, Quinto, Pegg, and Saldana are definitely onboard though, with Urban and Cho being the only ones that I'm unsure about,) so clearly Paramount has faith in it. Chris Hemsworth has also seen the script which supposedly involves George Kirk and has described it as, and I quote "brilliant," suggesting that Paramount clearly has faith in Pegg's writing for the franchise, and presumably in Justin Lin's direction as well. It's just a matter of actually putting the thing into production, and my guess is that Paramount is now quietly giving CBS some breathing room to launch DSC before they ramp up production on their next film, which isn't entirely a bad thing, and keeps it from being perpetually delayed after a release date is set the way the last three films were.

 

Also, Simon Pegg really summed up how to "fix" the problem with the Kelvin Timeline movies perfectly, which is to take out a lot of the action sequences that fans don't want, and that cost most of the money required to produce a Trek film. I'm not talking about ship battles, but about the bike–flips and random platform jumps that fans already aren't fond of, and that are the most expensive part of these films. Lose those and the budget shrinks dramatically, and Trek becomes quite profitable.

 

Didn't someone at Paramount suggest that the Kelvin Timeline films should have done something like the new Star Wars movies where we occasionally get a one off film that basically exists for the purpose of universe building? (Zero Dark Thirty in space as one example seems to ring a bell for some reason.) That's not an entirely bad idea if it means that the Kelvin Timeline gets fleshed out in a way that people can actually care about it, which was really hard to do with anything in it prior to Beyond, and that's largely because Beyond gave us a reason to care about the characters, and to see them as more than just knock–offs of their Prime Universe counterparts, which is something STID failed miserably at, and one of many reasons why it was a horrible film.



#6 MisterPL

MisterPL

    The card is maxed out.

  • Members
  • 255 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 February 2017 - 09:52 AM

 Or is it simply because Star Trek is fundamentally a TV series and that's where it's popularity lies?

 

That one has my vote. I know Paramount won't accept that but the fact is that a movie needs to give audiences characters they care about. TMP had that built into it thanks to the TV series. 

 

The most successful Trek movies haven't been hugely popular because most audiences want to know what happens to the crew the way they do Marvel characters. They've been successful because they're loud and bold and feature the same pop culture archetypes that have been part of the zeitgeist for over 50 years. 

 

I suppose Paramount could try using the Marvel formula. Do a films about Picard & Crusher, Riker & Troi, and Geordi and Worf. Introduce these characters in their own solo films and the Avengers-style team-up becomes a feature film reboot of TNG. I'm sure the film studio would be thrilled with that.

 

As for CBS TV, just keep moving forward by creating new characters in a familiar setting (the U.S.S. Enterprise) "exploring strange new worlds."



#7 1701D

1701D

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 06 February 2017 - 11:56 AM

Alex, I think it's unfair to suggest that Star Trek Into Darkness should tanked.

The truth is, Star Trek has been many things, it just hasn't had the budget of the most recent incarnations. We've been used to a specific kind of Star Trek built mostly on the performances of the actors rather than the spectacle of amazing jaw dropping CGI.

In my opinion while the movies are very different from what we've come to expect from Star Trek (and perhaps not as strong as some Star Trek stories). All three are much better movies in general than the bulk of the older films (Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations, Final Frontier, Search for Spock, The Motion Picture). They have better pacing, they have better production values and the stories of all three have been well developed. Star Trek Into Darkness seems to have caused a lot of issues for the fanbase but honestly it's the only Star Trek movie to have performed better overseas than in the US and still one of the highest grossing Star Trek movies to date, a lot of people like that movie and genuinely I would quite like to see a sequel to that movie, to reintroduce Khan because I feel he wasn't the bad guy in that movie, his motives were understandable.... I watched it again last night and the parallels between the problems we face in our own world and the themes explored in the movie, are so relatable.

Beyond capitulated slightly in that it didn't push the boundaries and as a result was a less important movie for it. Krall wasn't an especially exciting bad guy and whereas Into Darkness was complex, Beyond was a pretty simple story. Third movie in, I think audiences were expecting more.

I've expected more from this alternate universe since 2009 quite honestly. I think the issues between CBS and Paramount have ruined the potential this revival had.

It's hard to know where to take Star Trek now I think CBS are certainly doing something interesting and my feeling is that Star Trek: Discovery will be something that will again shake up the fan base the way the 2009 movie did. My feeling is that Star Trek 4 needs to do what the first Trek movie did and Into Darkness did rather than what Beyond did. As much as Star Trek Beyond was a wonderful movie in terms of character development amongst the main cast, the next one needs to be a radical change to what we've come to expect. It can't play it safe like Beyond did, but at the same time it has to have the spirit of exploration and optimism at its very heart, the way Into Darkness didn't.

But also expand this timeline! I just don't think a movie every 3/4 years is enough to keep it going.

#8 Alex

Alex

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 878 posts

Posted 08 February 2017 - 12:42 PM

I'm about to head into work 1701D, but I just wanted to write a really quick reply. While STID did do better internationally than any other Trek film, one reason it did better was because it was coasting on Trek XI. The problem with STID wasn't that it had jaw–dropping CGI, it's that it had a poorly written script and it twisted itself into a pretzel for the worst kind of fanservice imaginable compared to STB which had fanservice that didn't hit the audience over the head or feel stupid and contrived. STB told the kind of stories that Trek tells well, and in any other year it would have been far more successful, although not as successful financially as STID, because unlike STID, STB was coasting off of STID rather than Trek XI, and STID wasn't nearly as popular as its predecessor. I suspect ST14 will do quite well simply based on people enjoying STB, but that assumes people have rented it and seen it. I also wouldn't praise STID's pacing, that's one of the areas where it felt practically schizophrenic at times to me.

 

I don't think the issues between CBS and Paramount really hurt the Kelvin Timeline so much as I think J.J. Abrams hurt it by trying to turn Trek into something it fundamentally isn't. To his credit, Justin Lin kept with the spirit of Trek much more than Abrams did while still keeping with the Kelvin Timeline's spirit of action.

 

At this point I think a film every three years could be fine for the Kelvin Timeline now that we've gotten to know the characters a bit. STB may have played it safe, but that was necessary to develop this crew and act as a 50th anniversary celebration. Sometimes you don't need a total spectacle, sometimes you need a reason to care about the characters so that you can pull off the total spectacle later. I also think a Khan film was just a horrible idea, and that if they wanted another TWOK, they should have picked another TOS character and given them the treatment Khan had originally. I'd have been much happier with a movie featuring Gary Mitchell, Harry Mudd, or even Tribbles, (and not just one resurrected Tribble,) with the latter being the one character I'd have reservations about only because we saw them expanded upon on DS9. We're getting a new helmsman out of necessity; I wouldn't mind that being Jaylah from STB since she's a character worth expanding upon.

 

As for DSC, I have my theories about it, but I think it can be made to fit into the given timeframe that it's placed in. Sarek being announced as a character pretty much ensures that it doesn't stray too far from what we know, and it's possible that the broken Delta of the Enterprise that doesn't fit in the pre–TOS timeline is the result of the U.S.S. Discovery not necessarily being from said point in the timeline initially. Based on what we've seen so far, DSC looks like it has a ship that's going to be doing a lot of covert operations. (E.g. Hiding in an asteroid, having uniforms and insignias that don't seem like they belong where they are, and still including characters that force it not to screw with established canon.) Part of me thinks DSC could be a Temporal Cold War series, which might allow for some wiggle–room in how certain events unfold, and still allow TNG–VGR to exist as we know them. It would also be a great set–up for an eventual 25th or even 26th Century series to tie everything together.



#9 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,085 posts

Posted 08 February 2017 - 03:55 PM

namely the fact that it was released in the single worst year for reboots, spin–offs, and sequels in well over a decade

 

Well, I was following you until this part.  From where I was standing all year it was a pretty good year for those.  Maybe not according to the bean counters and executives, and lets just pretend the DC universe doesn't exist...  But I think the general public enjoyed most of them and there are "legs" on those properties growing out of the movies that perhaps nobody has fully realized yet.



#10 1701D

1701D

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 08 February 2017 - 07:32 PM

I'm not entirely convinced that Star Trek Into Darkness coasted on the success of Star Trek... I think in fact Star Trek Into Darkness had far more work to do to revive the success of its predecessor four years prior.

As for Star Trek Beyond... I think it wasn't the fact it was coming off of the back of Into Darkness. The negative feedback Into Darkness got was in some ways justified... the rehash of Warth of Khan, and the lack of exploration in favour of a showdown on Earth and... Blingons...

But although there were weaknesses in Into Darkness, again it was popular enough globally to have made people want to go and see Star Trek Beyond.

Beyond felt to me, a Trek fan, like a movie no one really knew was coming out. It was swamped by Star Wars news and JJ Abrams moving from Trek to Wars and really Star Trek got hit and while Lin is a great director and while Pegg and Jung wrote a fantastically Star Trek script with superb character moments (these actors are just amazing), it was nothing new! And in Star trek's 50th year, I think a lot of people felt it deserved something fresh, something more, something different. I think it really came and went without much pomp and ceremony, whereas Star Trek (2009) was hugely in the public eye as the triumphant return to great Star Trek movies.

And I don't buy Abrams trying to change Star Trek to be something unrecognisable. First and foremost, the thing I get from these movies is that everyone working on them does so because they love Star Trek and respect it either from a young age growing up with it or as a new fan discovering it for the first time, that's an amazing group to have working on Star Trek. Ok Influenced by certain franchises sure but it's not the first time that's happened with Star Trek and If it were the case that he wanted to turn Star Trek into Star Wars then these movies wouldn't have gone on to reach Into Darkness, let alone Beyond.

We all know Star Trek is a TV show, that's where it thrives. I think we are likely to see Discovery take more influence from the Abrams movies than the Berman era and I would be astonished if anything was mentioned about the Temporal Cold War...

The split in the badge could symbolise the two timelines; the Prime and Kelvin. Certainly from the recent trailer, the style of the uniforms are more reminiscent of the uniforms from the Kelvin.

My guess is that Star Trek 4 will tie into Discovery moreso than we may think. Maybe not directly but I think the three movies we have seen most recently is the style and aesthetic we're going to see from Star Trek moving into Discovery. More cerebral? Sure as there's more time to develop the story and the characters.

As for the 24th century and beyond... ah i just don't think they'll revisit that time period. I think they've settled on the era they know is moreso identifiable as Star Trek to as many people as possible where they can revisit characters like Sarek but also create new characters like Lt. Comander Rainsford

#11 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 2,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 08 February 2017 - 10:47 PM

The reason Beyond failed is because it's marketing was garbage, plain and simple.

The first trailer was such a massive turn off to Trek fans that they just shot themselves in the foot from the get go. They then completely spoiled the plot with the other trailers.

Beyond is the best of the Kelvin movies, and Paramount screwed it up with its horrid marketing.

#12 1701D

1701D

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 09 February 2017 - 07:13 AM

The reason Beyond failed is because it's marketing was garbage, plain and simple.

The first trailer was such a massive turn off to Trek fans that they just shot themselves in the foot from the get go. They then completely spoiled the plot with the other trailers.

Beyond is the best of the Kelvin movies, and Paramount screwed it up with its horrid marketing.


I agree that Paramount screwed up the marketing for this movie. The first trailer was ridiculous and after that we really got nothing that made the movie seem to be a must see movie.

I don't agree that Beyond was the best of the Kelvin movies though, better than Into Darkness sure (although Cumberbatch is heads and shoulders above Elba in terms of villain) but I think the first Kelvin Star Trek movie was the best due to a number of reasons; firstly it was sin important event, the return of Star Trek. What we were treated to was an explosion of nuclear proportions in terms of how it changed everything forever. Going from Enterprise and Nemesis to this, was a huge deal. It reinvigorated the franchise in a bold and exciting way that drew people into Star Trek who had never even considered watching it and didn't hold back in shaking things up; the destruction of Vulcan being the icing on the cake. It was the movie Star Trek needed and it delivered.

In 50 years I don't think we've ever got such an exciting, emotional 10 minute opener in Star Trek than we got in the 2009 movie and I don't think either of the sequels have managed to top the first movie in terms of spectacle, story, impact and importance.

Where Beyond works is certainly in how stunning it looks, it's a beautiful movie that continues the great production values of both of its predecessors. the chemistry between its main cast too is something which is explored even further. Everyone is given something to do and everyone is on top of their game so much. Jaylah is probably the best newcomer in Star Trek since Savik. The pace and music are reminiscent of TOS and it plods along like a great two part Star Trek episode. Essentially Beyond is perhaps the better sequel to Star Trek (2009) than Into Darkness was.

Where Beyond doesn't work is that it plods along like a two part episode of TOS, it's nothing we haven't seen before; the Enterprise gets destroyed (albeit brilliantly) and a 2 dimensional bad guy bent on revenge that only the Enterprise crew can stop is hardly really explored at all. It's a very simple enjoyable story that just never had the importance or impact of Star Trek or Into Darkness.

As a Star Trek movie, it works because it goes into all the nerdy things Trekkies love having explained, it's out on the frontier exploring and goes into little Easter eggs such as how Edison was a member of MACO, the mention of the Xindi war and Romulan war... but I think everyone else was probably expecting more and so they should be. Star Trek shouldn't be playing it safe or pandering to its fanbase.

Star Trek 4 needs to come out of the gate with something fresh, something important and something interesting that respects Star Trek sure, builds upon the mythology and the legacy but isn't afraid to shake things up and go it's own way in the same way as the 2009 movie did.

On top of Paramount not ruining the marketing for it... Honestly, that studio are in serious problems.

#13 MisterPL

MisterPL

    The card is maxed out.

  • Members
  • 255 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:03 AM

Lately I've become trailer celibate.

 

If a movie manages to hook me on the first try, I actively avoid further trailers, TV spots, or featurettes. I have no idea why but for years the film industry has decided that the best way to get folks into theaters is to slowly show them all the pivotal moments beforehand. When that happens, I tend to walk out disappointed.

 

I'm a life-long Trekkie. I've seen all the films in theaters, even The Final Frontier and Nemesis. I'll probably always see Trek movies in cinemas unless they do something horribly, horribly wrong. So I might treat myself to the first preview to get a taste and that's it. Screw spoiler-laden marketing and fanboy prejudice and media reviews; I'm there.

 

So far it's been a much more satisfying experience.



#14 Alteran195

Alteran195

    Their ACTION FIGURES, not dolls!!

  • Members
  • 2,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:16 AM

I do the same thing, I'll watch the initial teasers then nothing else. I don't think I've seen a teaser that spoils anything.

It makes things much more enjoyable.

#15 1701D

1701D

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:51 PM

I just wish that Paramount would put out one amazing trailer and then build anticipation in other ways rather than revealing everything at the last minute as a desperate attempt at generating interest. It seemed like after that first trailer, Paramount went into meltdown and just had a bit of a strop and then when they realised they had $185 million+ invested in the movie, they had a panic and released the movie in 2 minute increments revealing the twist a week before the actual movie was released.

 

Awful job.

 

In a stark contrast, we look at how Disney do it... Need I say more? 



#16 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 4,720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 10 February 2017 - 08:33 PM

What will get people talking about Star Trek Beyond it's fanbase.

 

Beyond its fanbase? I think they might want to get their base back! Personally, I've decided to move on.. at least in regards to the Kelvin Timeline. STB was the first Trek movie I didn't go to the theaters to see. In fact I waited until I got a coupon to rent it for .25. I actually enjoyed it more than the last two... but I just don't feel like I have anything invested in the Kelvin Timeline franchise.  

 

Star Trek Movies were always a nice "Thank you" to fans; built on the goodwill and base built by the TV shows. When Discovery comes out, if its smartly written and decently acted, hopefully it'll build the base back up. If successful, I hope they will do follow ons series... and then maybe movies based on it. 



#17 1701D

1701D

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 February 2017 - 09:19 PM

 
Beyond its fanbase? I think they might want to get their base back! Personally, I've decided to move on.. at least in regards to the Kelvin Timeline. STB was the first Trek movie I didn't go to the theaters to see. In fact I waited until I got a coupon to rent it for .25. I actually enjoyed it more than the last two... but I just don't feel like I have anything invested in the Kelvin Timeline franchise.  
 
Star Trek Movies were always a nice "Thank you" to fans; built on the goodwill and base built by the TV shows. When Discovery comes out, if its smartly written and decently acted, hopefully it'll build the base back up. If successful, I hope they will do follow ons series... and then maybe movies based on it. 

I mean that's a shame you don't feel enough towards the new movies to go and support them/watch them. I genuinely think that most Star Trek fans just enjoy new Star Trek as and when it comes out and judge it on whether or not they enjoyed the experience watching it and think nothing of whether or not it holds true to the Roddenberry spirit.

In that regard I don't think Paramount or CBS need to win back their fan base. Personally, they haven't lost me, I still see these movies as very much a part of Star Trek and I will definitely go and watch anything Star Trek and judge it on its own merits. i do think these movies have flaws but watching and listening to the crew talk about why they made that choice or had to decide to go about Star Trek differently I have a huge amount of respect for Abrams and co. The passion is there to make the best Star Trek movie possible and that means a lot to me.

Plus they have tried hard to work into these very large summer blockbusters, a very meaningful, relevant and moral story that does what every great Star Trek story does and that's comment on society, political differences etc of the day. That doesn't mean they get it right all the time but no Star Trek episode or film is without it's flaws. That's the nature of art and entertainment.

I think coming to realise Star Trek works better on the small screen is something that needs to be realised now by Paramount and Bad Robot but then really working out a way to develop a movie that doesn't necessarily mean they scrap the current movie cast, it's an amazing cast, but maybe a move to focus more on character than spectacle? Perhaps going the route of a film that is much smaller, a more cerebral science fiction film rather than a big summer epic.

Movies like Moon, Interstellar, The Martian, The Hateful Eight, Lion, Dunkirk, Inception, The Imitation Game, Theory of Everything... movies that are intelligently written, aren't written to appeal to the broadest audiences but stand alone and that are purely about the story, the acting and the characters rather than the cgi spectacle like the Star Wars or Marvel movies.

Star Trek can be and mean almost anything, it's a franchise that paints with broad strokes as we've seen but I think because of its fundamental TV nature, the sheer size and scope of the three most recent Star Trek's are somewhat at odds with the smaller budgets of their predecessors both on film and TV.

it would be really interesting to see this cast or some of this cast in a hard science fiction movie written by a science fiction writer and developed by Abrams that purely focuses on the story and the characters and not the CGI spectacle.

It would be intriguing to see what kind of a response a true science fiction Star Trek movie that had a really limited budget would be like and whether or not the vocal fans would respond positively to it.

I mean I do think there's a real case to be made that the fans aren't really sure what they want from Star Trek anymore. Is it more of the TOS style of Trek, is it something that is more cerebral like TNG? Is it a grittier take on Trek like DS9 was or is it more of what Abrams has developed? You certainly can't please everyone but I just don't think fans really know what it is they want from Star Trek, they react though to anything different to what they're used to.

I think there's still that feeling there among Star Trek fans that Star Trek is theirs and no one else's and that anyone new coming into this exclusive universe better understand us and what Star Trek means to us. Perhaps that's down to how influential and instrumental the fans were in saving the show?

#18 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 4,720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 11 February 2017 - 06:52 AM


Movies like Moon, Interstellar, The Martian, The Hateful Eight, Lion, Dunkirk, Inception, The Imitation Game, Theory of Everything... movies that are intelligently written, aren't written to appeal to the broadest audiences but stand alone and that are purely about the story, the acting and the characters rather than the cgi spectacle like the Star Wars or Marvel movies.
 

 

 

This is the point I've made several times now... though I disagree that intelligently written movies don't appeal to board audiences. Both Interstellar and the martian did quite well at the box office, though admittedly Interstellar, with its more complex plot did worse, but they both easily beat STB,.  

 

I liked Star Trek For its smart, sometimes quirky sci-fi writing. I gave the new films a go, they just aren't for me, so I've decided to spend my money on other films. If other people like it thats fine... I don't begrudge anyone that, but you asked whats it gonna take to make #4 bring in more people... and I'm just one person, but as a long time fan that finally said "no more"... that should be a concern to the studio... because I know I'm not the only one. 

 

I actually think Roddenberry's Star Trek is has a place back on TV, the in your face obvious moral plays with a sci-fi-fi twist... in the 60's they were doing stories about things that happened 20-30 years earlier... or were relevant to the times. I think we could use some of that now.... but again thats just one guys opinion. Like I said, I'll always give new trek ideas a chance... and there's so much great sci-fi-movies out there, I don't get excited about a new trek movie now... but I'd love to see a new TV series.



#19 MisterPL

MisterPL

    The card is maxed out.

  • Members
  • 255 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2017 - 11:08 AM

By the end of the 20th century, the fanbase was literally dying off. Even The Next Generation era, which introduced the franchise to a younger audience, wasn't enough to keep the films going. These three new films attracted a broader audience but it remains to be seen if those audiences care about the characters and not just the spectacle.

 

I have to wonder how Gravity, Interstellar, or The Martian might have performed with a suffix like "A Star Trek Story" attached to the title. Would they have attracted fewer moviegoers because it's Trek? Or more because it's not Matt Damon trying to survive a hostile planet but Simon Pegg's Scotty? Or Karl Urban's McCoy floating around in space instead of Sandra Bullock? Would Arrival have performed better with Zoe Saldana's Uhura making first contact instead of Amy Adams?

 

Is there a large enough audience for intimate, modestly budgeted, character-driven Trek films?



#20 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Yes the Troi figures hair worries me.

  • Members
  • 1,085 posts

Posted 13 February 2017 - 12:35 PM

Is there a large enough audience for intimate, modestly budgeted, character-driven Trek films?

 

No.  Not with the entertainment dollar stretched like it is in all directions these days.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users