What do you want to see in Star Trek 4?

[Ovation]

They would sooner have him crash into the red matter with Kelvin and the singularity magically sends him forward in time, he is found, and meets his son. It works all around to explain the lack of the age difference.

I'm not all that eager to revisit George Kirk, but IF the powers that be insist on doing so, what you've described is the most plausible (in-universe) and easiest (both in-universe and production-wise) way to do so. Would take 5 mins. of screen time, tops, be internally consistent with first film and avoid reset buttons via time travel (I LOATHE those).

 

[The Wormhole]

I have no hard evidence to back it up, but I suspect Star Trek fans are the reason for any lack of performance of the new films. Just a gut feeling.

In what way?

 

[ChristopherPike]

I have no hard evidence to back it up, but I suspect Star Trek fans are the reason for any lack of performance of the new films. Just a gut feeling.

Funny thing is, for the most part, it's only Star Trek fans who can be relied on to attend regardless, and multiple times.

There's probably even an inverse ratio too. The poorer performing ones seen repeated times, long after general audiences have given up, if I'm anything to go by.

 

[Smellmet]

I've got little interest in this story line. It needs to be an amazing, massively entertaining plot to include Hemsworth in this role. Anything less and it will bomb big style.

 

[urbandefault]

In what way?

Funny thing is, for the most part, it's only Star Trek fans who can be relied on to attend regardless, and multiple times.

There's probably even an inverse ratio too. The poorer performing ones seen repeated times, long after general audiences have given up, if I'm anything to go by.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth from fans, starting long before ST09 was released. The railing against everything Paramount tried to do to bring in a new audience. The rejection of everything new, everything that didn't line up with old continuity. The cries far and wide of "canon violations."

Constantly expecting a rehash of what's been done before, demanding that dots be connected from TV to film to novels to comics, nitpicking every artistic choice and rejecting anything that they can't reconcile in their own "head canon."

Enterprise had challenges, but in my opinion it was ultimately the fans that killed it.

If Star Trek fails again, it's not because it couldn't bring in new fans. It will be because fandom drove them away.

YMMV.

 

[locutus101]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth from fans, starting long before ST09 was released. The railing against everything Paramount tried to do to bring in a new audience. The rejection of everything new, everything that didn't line up with old continuity. The cries far and wide of "canon violations."

Constantly expecting a rehash of what's been done before, demanding that dots be connected from TV to film to novels to comics, nitpicking every artistic choice and rejecting anything that they can't reconcile in their own "head canon."

Enterprise had challenges, but in my opinion it was ultimately the fans that killed it.

If Star Trek fails again, it's not because it couldn't bring in new fans. It will be because fandom drove them away.

YMMV.

With a fifty year old franchise, some fans must be close to seventy. These are usually set in their ways.

 

[The Wormhole]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth from fans, starting long before ST09 was released. The railing against everything Paramount tried to do to bring in a new audience. The rejection of everything new, everything that didn't line up with old continuity. The cries far and wide of "canon violations."

But as you say, all this went on before Trek XI's release, and it didn't seem to hurt its box office performance. The truth of the matter is, the general public probably isn't aware of the general bitchiness of fandom for it to be a factor in their decisions. Hell, the Star Wars prequels had a reputation as being crap both by Star Wars fandom and the general public, yet they pulled huge box office draws. To say nothing of Transformers movies now.

Enterprise had challenges, but in my opinion it was ultimately the fans that killed it.

No, there were a lot of problems with Enterprise. In fact, Berman and Braga originally pitched a series which was going to be different from the Star Trek norm, and it was UPN that demanded another TNG clone. Enterprise also really wasn't promoted that well, I remember many times while it was on I'd get into conversations with people about Star Trek and they'd often say something like "they don't make new ones anymore, do they?" and were completely surprised to hear about Enterprise.

If Star Trek fails again, it's not because it couldn't bring in new fans. It will be because fandom drove them away.

If Star Trek fails again the fault is the producers/writers. Sure Star Trek fans bitch and moan like you wouldn't believe, so do all the other fandoms. The official Doctor Who Magazine was publishing letters written by fans prior to its revival in 2005 stating that Christopher Eccleston's leather jacket was a betrayal of the franchise and they wouldn't be watching it. Yet here we are eleven years later and the show is currently filming another season. Give a fandom quality product, and the franchise will thrive. If the franchise isn't turning a profit, than the producers are doing something wrong, it's not the fans scaring people away with their internet bitching.

 

[johnjm22]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth from fans, starting long before ST09 was released. The railing against everything Paramount tried to do to bring in a new audience. The rejection of everything new, everything that didn't line up with old continuity. The cries far and wide of "canon violations."

Constantly expecting a rehash of what's been done before, demanding that dots be connected from TV to film to novels to comics, nitpicking every artistic choice and rejecting anything that they can't reconcile in their own "head canon."

Enterprise had challenges, but in my opinion it was ultimately the fans that killed it.

If Star Trek fails again, it's not because it couldn't bring in new fans. It will be because fandom drove them away.

YMMV.

No offense, but I think you're completely wrong.

I think you're overestimating how much impact "Star Trek Fans" have. Most of the general audience out there doesn't even know or care what Trekkies think.

And most Star Trek fans like the new movies.

 

[locutus101]

No offense, but I think you're completely wrong.

I think you're overestimating how much impact "Star Trek Fans" have. Most of the general audience out there doesn't even know or care what Trekkies think.

And most Star Trek fans like the new movies.

And even when they don't like them, they'll go see them anyway.

 

[johnjm22]

Exactly, and I'm not talking about ripping off the plot. Like them or hate them, Interstellar and The Martian were science fiction films on an epic scale. Star Trek is about seeking out new life and new civilizations and exploring the great unknown. An Interstellar-like Star Trek movie could do a fantastic job of that.

"Gravity" did 700M on a 100M budget and the new Denis Villeneuve science fiction movie "Arrival" is going to do well IMO. (The budget is only 50M)

Among general audiences, there's certainly no lack of interest in space based science fiction movies.

That said, the aforementioned movies are more realistic in a sense than ST. Star Trek has become silly and retro. It's too science fiction for the kids that want to watch comic book movies, and too silly for adults that want to see harder science fiction.

 

[The Wormhole]

That said, the aforementioned movies are more realistic in a sense than ST.

Star Wars is hardly "realistic." It's doing fine at the box office.

 

[johnjm22]

Star Wars is hardly "realistic." It's doing fine at the box office.

I didn't say Star Wars.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm just saying Trek isn't underperforming because it isn't "realistic" and using the success of Star Wars as evidence. Indeed, Star Trek has never been realistic, even during the heyday of the 90s.

 

[Ovation]

Sometimes, decent movies just don't perform up to expectations at the box office. One can parse all the variables, but in the end, the biggest variable of all is the audience. Those who have expressed an opinion of the film, according to the usual sites where such (admittedly non-scientific) info is available, seem to be pleased with it. Same with critics (83% at Rotten Tomatoes is not the be all and end all of critical response, but it's a decent gauge of critical views in North America). Despite such positive impressions, it just didn't reach blockbuster status. It happens.

As to what the next film will be about? (there'll be a next film) We'll know in due time. I'm not worried about it. I'll see it anyway (I've seen and bought all the others--can't see why I'd stop now).

 

[Relayer1]

No he didn't. He did a great job. So what we have now is a difference of opinion and nothing objective to be able to claim as fact.

True. I really couldn't tell any difference in approach, tone, character moments and ethos of the movie - it just appeared to be a straight continuation of the other two, which was not at all what I expected from Pegg.

You obviously did see some difference in at least some of those things. Milage obviously varies...

 

[johnjm22]

I'm just saying Trek isn't underperforming because it isn't "realistic" and using the success of Star Wars as evidence. Indeed, Star Trek has never been realistic, even during the heyday of the 90s.

Star Wars is a unique property.

I'm just pointing out that general audiences have shown plenty of interest in space based science fiction that's more mature. It doesn't have to be a a massive action special FX fest. I feel like Trek used to be forward looking, now it's retro.

 

[donners22]

Among general audiences, there's certainly no lack of interest in space based science fiction movies.

"Let's go see the new movie with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock" is a much easier sell than "Let's go see the new Star Trek movie."

I managed to get one out of eighteen colleagues to see Beyond, and the fact that it was a Trek film was the primary reason - perceptions that it required knowledge of the series, that it was nerdy, boring, campy etc. [Didn't help that the one who saw it came back and said she nearly fell asleep four times]

The Trek prefix imposes a ceiling on the potential audience, and I think the first two Kelvin films just about reached it. For a franchise which has failed to grow its fanbase over the last couple of decades, that is a real problem. I saw two kids in as many screenings of Beyond (the first with over 200 people). When my partner dragged me to see the last Star Wars film, they were everywhere.

If Star Trek fails again, it's not because it couldn't bring in new fans. It will be because fandom drove them away.

Reading comments on the official Trek Facebook page or /r/startrek can be pretty depressing. If I weren't a well-established fan, I'd wonder why on earth I'd want to be part of such a community.

 

[Kelthaz]

Reading comments on the official Trek Facebook page or /r/startrek can be pretty depressing. If I weren't a well-established fan, I'd wonder why on earth I'd want to be part of such a community.

Every group or fandom is like that. Star Trek, video games, sports, fitness, books, food, cooking, etc. It's not unique to Star Trek. I'm pretty sure that general audiences are well aware that hardcore fans of anything are weird and fortunately in the minority. People are not going to be chased off from the franchise by a thread on reddit.

 

[johnjm22]

"Let's go see the new movie with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock" is a much easier sell than "Let's go see the new Star Trek movie."

You have a point, but rarely do George Clooney or Sandra Bullock movies bring in massive sums of money. I think the public does have a lot of interest in space based science fiction.

I managed to get one out of eighteen colleagues to see Beyond, and the fact that it was a Trek film was the primary reason - perceptions that it required knowledge of the series, that it was nerdy, boring, campy etc. [Didn't help that the one who saw it came back and said she nearly fell asleep four times]

The Trek prefix imposes a ceiling on the potential audience, and I think the first two Kelvin films just about reached it. For a franchise which has failed to grow its fanbase over the last couple of decades, that is a real problem. I saw two kids in as many screenings of Beyond (the first with over 200 people). When my partner dragged me to see the last Star Wars film, they were everywhere.

I agree, I think you've summed it up well. ST has a relatively high floor, and a relatively low ceiling.

I also think Star Trek doesn't appeal to kids so you're not going to get the Pixar/MCU consumers to come see it, and Star Trek is also too silly to appeal to adults that want mature science fiction (the Gravity/Interstellar type crowd). So it's stuck in between.

 

[JWPlatt]

I also think Star Trek doesn't appeal to kids so you're not going to get the Pixar/MCU consumers to come see it, and Star Trek is also too silly to appeal to adults that want mature science fiction (the Gravity/Interstellar type crowd). So it's stuck in between.

Do you mean like the kids who grew up with careers in the space program as adults who credit Star Trek as their inspiration?

I can't get my kids to watch anything else.