Next Star Trek movie discussion

So an update on this: looks like it's official and "The Revenant" writer, Mark L Smith is onboard to write a new Star Trek movie, based on Tarantino's idea. Tarantino is still pegged to direct, although given he's also supposed to be working on a film about Charles Manson, I wouldn't be surprised if he steps aside and another director comes along in time.

pixelburp wrote: »

So an update on this: looks like it's official and "The Revenant" writer, Mark L Smith is onboard to write a new Star Trek movie, based on Tarantino's idea. Tarantino is still pegged to direct, although given he's also supposed to be working on a film about Charles Manson, I wouldn't be surprised if he steps aside and another director comes along in time.

Get Rian Johnson in there he would do a good job. I think he might understand Star Trek to.

I dunno, after Last Jedi, JJ Abrams may not be a fan of Johnson's wholesale trashing of all Abrams' "mystery boxes". They may not be on speaking terms after that

I would agree though, Johnson's a good fit, has a genuinely creative eye and unless reports from the set contradict, has experience getting the most out of slim budgets. Methinks whatever happens with a Trek 4 there's bound to be less money to use than before. Series could do with some reduced purse-strings.

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, after Last Jedi, JJ Abrams may not be a fan of Johnson's wholesale trashing of all Abrams' "mystery boxes". They may not be on speaking terms after that

I would agree though, Johnson's a good fit, has a genuinely creative eye and unless reports from the set contradict, has experience getting the most out of slim budgets. Methinks whatever happens with a Trek 4 there's bound to be less money to use than before. Series could do with some reduced purse-strings.

]I dunno, after Last Jedi, JJ Abrams may not be a fan of Johnson's wholesale trashing of all Abrams' "mystery boxes". They may not be on speaking terms after that

Good. That's what he gets for messing with Star Trek. A franchise he knew nothing about and did not even care about. You know what they say ''Karma is a bitch''

I agree some reduced purse strings might equal a better story.

Its new Trek 4 by the way or in proper numbers it would should be 14.

Inviere

Johnson did a stupendous job with The Last Jedi, I’d have no qualms about putting him at the helm of a Trek film

Starfleet Student

I'd like to see Kathryn Bigelow direct one.
Nice mix and feel of Point Break & Zero Dark Thirty to it.

Starfleet Student wrote: »

I'd like to see Kathryn Bigelow direct one.
Nice mix and feel of Point Break & Zero Dark Thirty to it.

Ye she could do a good job as long as she gets it and is not just doing it for the sake of it like JJ Abrams was.

Well they are at it again. It looks like there is now 3 scripts been written for the next movie if it ever happens. There was talk of Chris Hemsworth coming back for the next movie. But how and in what way is not known. Then is talk about Quentin Tarantino writing a script. I really do not care for that. I actually thought that Beyond was quite decent and the best of the 3 rebooted films. It was just badly promoted.
So where would everyone here like to see the next movie go to?

Here is link

https://movieweb.com/star-trek-4-different-scripts-zachary-quinto/

Me I would like to see it get back to the Prime Universe and into the future but it is unlikely that will happen so I suppose the next best thing is to finish off these rebooted films in a fourth film that brings us back to the Prime timeline at some stage.
After that maybe reboot it again.

TheValeyard

Read somewhere that one of the scripts involved time travel and may reset the timeline

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Read somewhere that one of the scripts involved time travel and may reset the timeline

Yes that is right. That is the one with Chris Hemsworth if it ever happens. Right now it's all in limbo. No one knows what is happening.

I like Tarantino's early stuff (I know that sounds like such a cliche, but hey. Jackie Brown is my favourite of his films). But I don't think he is the right voice at all for Trek. Not sure WHO would be a good replacement. Rian Johnson was mentioned. Would be an interesting choice. I am also a fan of The Last Jedi. It may be controversial but I quite enjoyed Star Trek (reboot). I thought it was fun. Not so gone on the 2nd and didn't think much of the 3rd at all (It barely registered apart from the late 90's bike effects). It would be nice to bring in a new voice. It certainly needs a breath of fresh air. If you can't bring in a new, untried voice then I reckon it should be one of the following:

Zach Snyder
Michael Bay
Guilermo Del Toro
Peter Jackson
James Cameron
Taiki Wattiti
McG
Joss Whedon
Spielberg
George Lucas (As well as writing)
All of the above in a pre-planned decade of movies

Note: List may or may not be just for fun and to get eyeballs twitching with rage

Mickeroo

I'd like them to give it to someone like Alex Garland or Dennis Villeneuve who have been shown to make interesting, genuine sci-fi films. Their stuff to date has been a fair bit more serious than Star Trek has traditionally been but I'd love to see what they would do with it if given the chance.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'd like them to give it to someone like Alex Garland or Dennis Villeneuve who have been shown to make interesting, genuine sci-fi films. Their stuff to date has been a fair bit more serious than Star Trek has traditionally been but I'd love to see what they would do with it if given the chance.

Garland would be a good choice. Villeneuve..... I enjoyed Arrival and, to a lesser extent, Bladerunner 2046 (I'm not a huge Gosling fan so that was part of the reason and I did think it was a little bit of style over substance. But that's another conversation). I think Villeneuve might not have the mindset for an action movie.

Garland though? Yeah, I can see that

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

[...]

Note: List may or may not be just for fun and to get eyeballs twitching with rage

Zack Synder, Michael Bay or George Lucas? I ... uh, respectfully disagree either of those 'directors' should be let anywhere near Trek

First and foremost, I think Trek on Film should be hastily scaled back from being these big, blockbuster action-spectacles. Ultimately I think the 2009+ flavours were always destined for failure: the mega-blockbuster market is too dominated by Disney (Marvel + Star Wars) for one, while the amped-up action eroded a lot of goodwill in the Trek fanbase. Box-office returns were always destined downward.

If there's any sense in the powers that be, the hypothetical 4th film should pump the breaks and retrofit Trek Movies into mid-budget thrillers; the so-called shared universes are now commonplace, so there's no reason why a bunch of narratively interconnected Trek films, telling relatively smaller scale stories, couldn't do very well for themselves.

Goodshape

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Zach Snyder

Michael Bay

Guilermo Del Toro

Peter Jackson

James Cameron

Taiki Wattiti

McG

Joss Whedon

Spielberg

George Lucas (As well as writing)

All of the above in a pre-planned decade of movies

Note: List may or may not be just for fun and to get eyeballs twitching with rage

*twitch*

With the exception – maybe – of Del Toro, that is a list of names from my worst nightmares. I guess some of those guys can make a good film, but not a Trek film. Good god, no.

Someone like Garland or Villeneuve, though, would be very interesting.

I think Villeneuve might not have the mindset for an action movie.

Exactly! He'd be perfect.

Inviere

pixelburp wrote: »

Zack Synder, Michael Bay or George Lucas? I ... uh, respectfully disagree either of those 'directors' should be let anywhere near Trek any more films

A slight, yet important, correction :pac:

pixelburp wrote: »

Zack Synder, Michael Bay or George Lucas? I ... uh, respectfully disagree either of those 'directors' should be let anywhere near Trek

Hence

Note: List may or may not be just for fun and to get eyeballs twitching with rage

I don't think ANY of them should be allowed near Trek. There are some good directors there..... and some not so good. But even the good ones wouldn't suit Trek.... at all.

pixelburp wrote: »

If there's any sense in the powers that be, the hypothetical 4th film should pump the breaks and retrofit Trek Movies into mid-budget thrillers; the so-called shared universes are now commonplace, so there's no reason why a bunch of narratively interconnected Trek films, telling relatively smaller scale stories, couldn't do very well for themselves.

I'd like this, I've always thought the Star Trek universe would suit an anthology series. I'm not sure we'd ever get a Star Trek film that didn't center around characters that originated on a TV series though.

Evade wrote: »

I'd like this, I've always thought the Star Trek universe would suit an anthology series. I'm not sure we'd ever get a Star Trek film that didn't center around characters that originated on a TV series though.

Anthology series, TV or Film, are a very tough needle to thread & more often than not don't work out - especially Film series where any major success or failure tends to destroy the whole idea (see the Halloween franchise & its infamous third film, that tried & failed to make the series an anthological one).

I think a trilogy of smaller Kelvinverse Trek movies would work, framed as a more character focused, (conspiracy) thrillers would be the way to go; there's then scope for more Trek-like stories, interwoven with some longer-form storytelling.

Wonder how much Trek is valued at as a franchise these days: Netflix / Amazon are desperate for a cashcow genre franchise - and given the relative apathy Paramount / CBS treat Trek it could be sold for the right amount.

pixelburp wrote: »

If there's any sense in the powers that be, the hypothetical 4th film should pump the breaks and retrofit Trek Movies into mid-budget thrillers; the so-called shared universes are now commonplace, so there's no reason why a bunch of narratively interconnected Trek films, telling relatively smaller scale stories, couldn't do very well for themselves.

Yep. 100% I think they would do really well dialed back a little. No need to bring in a new species every movie: The bones are there to now start telling these kind of stories without having to revert to a bigger badder baddie each movie. Give us a Klingon power struggle movie, a Vulcan/Romulan unification/war movie, a discredited Enterprise crew movie....... Of the Marvel movies, (apart from Thor 3 which is fantastic), my favourite movies were Iron Man 3 and Captain America 2: Sure they went into flying fortresses and literally fire-breathing bad guys but, for the most part, they were dialed back compared to the rest.

I think Trek would be perfect for the type you suggest.

pixelburp wrote: »

Anthology series, TV or Film, are a very tough needle to thread & more often than not don't work out - especially Film series where any major success or failure tends to destroy the whole idea (see the Halloween franchise & its infamous third film, that tried & failed to make the series an anthological one).

A traditional film release might not work for it but maybe the future of Star Trek films would be more suited to Netflix or something similar. I'd be happy if every couple of years we got a BSG reboot length Star Trek mini series on Netflix instead of a feature film.

garbo speaks

Villeneuve would be perfect for a real thought provoking, high-concept Star Trek film. Just consider how refreshing and intelligent Blade Runner 2049 turned out to be. Sadly though, it did commercially poor, so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

garbo speaks wrote: »

Villeneuve would be perfect for a real thought provoking, high-concept Star Trek film. Just consider how refreshing and intelligent Blade Runner 2049 turned out to be. Sadly though, it did commercially poor, so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

I do not believe that at all.

I think the film just needs to be promoted swell and if that means not letting critics in to see it before it is released so be it. Promote the film well show some action not all of it a little humour but not fake or forced like what was in some of the new films. There is plenty of humour in Star Trek from Data to Worf to Picard or Riker they could all be funny and had funny moments at times it just need to be done well and right.

I would love to see the Breen in a film. Not sure how. Maybe a starfleet ship gets lost in Breen space or attacked by rogue Breen or something. Anyone else any ideas how it could be done?

AMKC wrote: »

I would love to see the Breen in a film. Not sure how. Maybe a starfleet ship gets lost in Breen space or attacked by rogue Breen or something. Anyone else any ideas how it could be done?

After a disastrous first contact (to fill the big Hollywood action quota) with the Breen Confederacy a ship is dispatched to open formal diplomatic relations and negotiate the release of any survivors. Maybe one, or a group, of the released survivors want a little payback and almost drag the Federation into an all out war with the Breen. Throw in the diplomatic ship having to work with the Breen to track down the renegades like in TNG's the Wounded But that would probably involve a previously unseen ship and crew and I don't see a film introducing a new crew as the main cast.

Have the Enterprise destroyed by sabotage in first 10 mins (For the trailer) and have them all stranded on an Earth-like planet trying to figure out how it happened and who is responsible (This conspiracy could lead to a multi-movie arc). Get Shane Black to write and direct (Which will mean that it will have to have Robert Downey Junior in it and it will have to be set at Christmas of course). Have it a character-driven piece instead of spectacle.

The only problem is is that Sci-Fi fans can be a crazy bunch, prone to bouts of toxic fandom. Any deviation of the norm is often met with the most vocal and repugnant hostility: Witness the hostility and negative spamming that the last Star Wars movie received. Look at the horrific racist and sexist abuse the women of the (very entertaining) Ghostbusters remake received.

So who would want to direct that? "Strand them on a planet? Where is the "Trek" in that you **%$$% hom$"££" piece of $£""%&^*. That director knows NOTHING about Trek. He's a %"%"$£% $%$%"""£*

And god help us if a WOMAN should direct. So I think the issue is that they are not going to rock the boat too much because, ironically, of the "fans"

garbo speaks

AMKC wrote: »

so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

I do not believe that at all.

The highest grossing films in Hollywood support my claim.

Blade Runner 2049 turned a profit though (albeit a small one that scarcely allowed execs to retire on), and anyone who seriously believed the film might be a giant blockbuster hit was ... foolish, to be charitable. It was a wonder Villeneuve managed to blag $150 million from the studio in the first place, just so he could make a sequel to a niche, cult film from 1982 (and let's be honest here, it has always remained thus, despite its sky-high reputation).

If the metric of discussion is that a new Trek film needs to compete in the stratosphere with all the other blockbuster behemoths - then Trek will always fail, and this was my argument a few posts back.

There's plenty of scope & room for intelligent, mid-budget sci-fi to exist in the mainstream; hell, the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise proves that even medium budgeted blockbusters can compete handsomely - if treated with a modicum of care, and respects the audiences' intelligence. Just off the top of my head there are films such as Arrival, Annihilation, Ex Machina, Edge of Tomorrow, The Martian, Under the Skin (though I personally didn't like this film), Looper, District 9, Moon, Snowpiercer - all proving that there's space for 'intelligence' in successful sci-fi.

Paramount just need some balls to admit that Trek is NOT blockbuster fodder and retrofit the franchise to suit.

It certainly does seem strange that Trek has not capitalised as much on the current resurgence of interest Sci-Fi has received. Sure, the vast majority are Super Hero movies but Star Wars films raking in 1.3 - 1.7 billion? Why are they not achieving anything near that? It may be that Trek is just that step too far into Sci-Fi for the mainstream. Certainly, talking to co-workers of mine, that seems to be the consensus: They will happily go to a Marvel movie and can't wait for each Star Wars movie but when I asked them about Star Trek: "Did you see the latest movie, or do you watch Discovery?" the answer is usually "Nah, that's a bit too nerdy for me" (That was a direct quote from two people).

I mean, the Trek fandom is, by a country mile, the most known (And ridiculed). It is the most visible and loyal: Is there a term for a Star Wars fan? Or a Marvel fan? I don't know. I wonder....... I wonder could it actually be to the detriment of the franchise financially. I wonder would the Paramount bean counters actually think "Y'know, the fans are great but maybe if they dialed it back a little bit we might get a larger audience"

Please note, I am not slagging the fans at all here. But, too the mainstream, they are certainly considered the "nerdiest" and a film needs to have a huge mainstream audience to really rake in the cash

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I wonder would the Paramount bean counters actually think "Y'know, the fans are great but maybe if they dialed it back a little bit we might get a larger audience"

Isn't that what they did with the JJverse?