Recent Hits as a Potential Direction for Trek Movies

But if it's pretentious and Nolan-esque, that would take it to a whole 'nother level of blockbuster-worthiness.

Kor

 

Touche

 

The Martian (and to a lesser extent 'Gravity') had been beaten to the punch around 50 years ago by Robinson Crusoe on Mars.

As inspiration from other sources (especially pulp action/ adventure) and familiar storytelling devices are automatically bad, such a things have no place on Star Trek!

Facetiousness aside, I actually thought the Martian could have taken a page from JJ's book and cut a lot of the 'talking head' stuff at NASA. I easily could have just watched Matt Damon survive and science the shit out of Mars for 2 hours, whilst only getting snippets of NASA exposition from the Pathfinder messages (or possibly also keeping the Ares III stuff). Though I know why they probably didn't go that route, and the people who were very into the technical stuff no doubt appreciated it. Not everyone prioritises their 'wants' from a movie the same way I do.

 

Master and Commander was adventure at sea, during the Age of Sail.

The Trek universe has been compared to the Age of Sail. Is there anything we can learn from movies set aboard sailing ships?

 

^ Yes, ships should be lumbering and slow. Battles with other ships should likewise be lumbering and slow exercises in tactics, not fast-paced action sequences. Life aboard ship should be tough and uncomfortable, with months and months out in the middle of nowhere with no outside contact.

The next Trek movie should be "Mutiny on the Bounty in Space."

Kor

 

Yes I know. That's why I said it might be an exception.

TWOK was ''Age of Sail" Trek

 

I'm with you. Blah blah blah NASA they are worried, whatever. Get back to Mars!

 

Spock as Fletcher Christian, Kirk as Bligh.

 

....not maneuvering like star fighters.

Yes, with capital ships, I agree completely.

 

As much as I enjoy all of the films, including the JJ Abrams outing, I think the problem is that the films tend to get bogged down by personality, rather than story. As much as I liked TWOK, the films essentially became "Villain of the Week". The only films that I enjoyed the most have been TMP and TVH, and TVH did well because there was a clear message throughout the film, with the characters being coincidental. We still got to know the characters even as the story progressed to its conclusion. That's why I am not big on the "Holy Trinity" concept for the movies. Sure, you can have the typical interplay between primary characters, but a movie has only 90 minutes to tell a story. I want to see the characters interact with each other, and not just among the usual groupings. Still, I think we'll get some of the charm of the franchise back, especially in light of the response to STAR WARS, for good or for ill.

 

...and since when does gravity affect the maneuvering of a ship in the vacuum of space?

 

It doesn't matter?

The question was how Trek should be influenced by nautical fiction.

Kor

 

Muse admit, it got my "Trek" hackles up when I read the Thread title and immediately got defensive about my Beloved Star Trek. Well, what a Thread! You all really made me think (again!). Not to derail Kor's last Post, because I think it is a good question. But, as an idea for a "potential direction for Trek", I always enjoyed the "Holodeck" episodes. Moriarty, Dix, even the goofy Robin Hood one. What about a show that stays "grounded" in the "future" but revolves around various officers and crew in Holodeck story lines. We open, close and jump back and forth from Ship to 'deck as needed, but we spend a lot/most of the time in the holostory? Just a thought.

As to Kor's question/comment above, I guess I always saw Star Trek as influenced by nautical fiction. Cart or Horse, maybe, but the Enterprise and other ships at "sea" in the stars.

Thank you all once again for excellent ideas and banter, and keeping this Thing we love fresh and new in my brain, even after 50 years!

Boldly Go, my friends...Boldly Go!