The movies should have stories that happen during many weeks or months in-universe. This way they could explore many worlds, and have them all as part of some greater story. They could have something making planets almost unhabitable, while the Klingons blame Starfleet and make space fights and plot. There would be all kinds of dangers on the planets, but leads to find. To keep things fresh, every other movie could have an almost real-time single location story. Perhaps make the fourth movie the one that most of ID's marketing showed.
Meh, those are just gimmicks which could be good, could be bad depending on how they're done. The only "right way to do the movies" is to tell a good story. Really, that's the right way to do anything entertainment-related.
Klingon's finding an excuse to send in cut and paste battles ships over the period of many months is not really a story that will make people want to watch a 2 hour movie. Sounds very episodic and cliched.
I'd say the 'right way' to do those movies is to keep doing what they've done already: Bring these characters to life. It's just so thrilling to see Kirk, Spock and McCoy in their youth, galavanting across the cosmos. Maybe it's because when I was a child, Kirk was old, grey and hated Klingons. Maybe it's because I rediscovered TOS as an adult and was surprised how good it could be. Maybe it's because I'm a sucker for a movie about a great team. Whatever the reason is, these two films work for me on an almost primal level. It's like coming home again.
Yes. Babylon 5 taught us cheesy special effects were fine so long as we had compelling storyline and deep, well-developed characters and interrelationships.
What I'm suggesting are forms that would show stories happening on a different scale than usual. The larger scale is one of space opera's defining parts and makes a difference in how effectively stories are told. They've been using that recently visibly less than the show does which makes no sense, as movies tell great stories with a larger timeframe all the time and bigger sells better? The opposite idea would make things more intimate and possibly more intense. There's no need for it to be episodic.
I don't know that "large scale" is a defining point of Space Opera, perhaps in the galactic empire subset, but not in general. TOS was a pretty intimate show that rarely went large scale. TNG and especially DS9 did large scale with "Federation in the balance" storylines. Movies can tell all types of stories and aren't really "large timeframe" exclusive. Not every film has to be LOTR.
I agree with you, Stig. I've joked that, in my youth, I watched my heroes deal with middle age. Now, in my middle age, I get to see my heroes in their youth. I tthink the new movies have found just the right chemistry with these characters. They are old and familiar AND new and fresh at the same time. Part of it is the "all bets are off" alternate universe. I want to see how these folks face old and new foes together.
I personally don't see the issue with either the lack of locations or the length of the story. Not including time travel, the story in STXI was decades long. Not really short by any measure, unless you want another story spanning Generations. STID was a bit too quick admittedly, but a war with the Klingons is unlikely to be. The locations... We visited plenty. The Earth and Vulcan alone were more than enough and all interesting – future Iowa, future San Francisco bay, the city itself in STID, future London (which was lovely), a Vulcan megapolis and the katric arc site. We also visited half the Solar System gas giants, saw Jupiter and Saturn itself, Titan and Io. Then we've got Quo'noS, Delta Vega, Rura Penthe (deleted) and a random planetoid. Apart from going to more places on Earth, that's more than one can ask for. And why would you want more locations? Just look at all the outrage at visiting an ocean. ETT: Oh yeah, we've even been to the inside of a volcano. That's not almost unhabitable, it's unhabitable.
I think the scale's almost always there some way. If I could speak I would have said: it is my belief that making things bigger can make a story feel more meaningful, like less trivial, just like making things more intimate can do. Space opera is the genre where you can go to the greatest extremes with the scale, and obviously Star Trek isn't LotR or Bayblon 5, but they should use it more. Even in the tv series, you knew that whatever was happening was part of their great mission, and every episode added more to it?
Their greater mission was pretty varied: exploration, colonial support, diplomacy, scientific research and national defense. Any one of those can and were used to launch a story. The story could have Galactic impact like "Errand of Mercy" or personal impact like "Amok Time". Its about the content and the characters, not the scale.
Presentation makes no difference. I propose that from now on, all space operas should be made in an empty soundstage, in the vein of Lars von Trier's Dogville, combined with Dogme 95 style camerawork, and no score. The brilliant acting and very interesting story will suffice.
No, I just did. Why would you think that? 09 did have a lot of what I was getting at, now that you remind. It's probably more creative than the form I was suggesting. Many keep saying it felt like the planets weren't very far apart though - they still haven't managed the part with great distances, the most obvious one!