Is Trek Well Suited to Movies?

[Aurora-7]

Trek was conceived as a television drama to explore contemporary issues in the mask of Sci Fi. I think the character and story development that makes Trek great is better suited to television. The movies with the TOS cast and TNG cast all felt like overblown TV episodes to me.

While I wish the Kelvinverse Trek followed some of the design philosophies of TOS Trek a little more, those movies at least felt like movies. I enjoyed every one.

But Trek is best on TV.

 

[BillJ]

I've enjoyed it on both TV and on the big screen. So I'd say it is well suited in the right hands.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I prefer the movies.

 

[Lance]

It works in both formats well enough. But it was born on TV, and the format did require some adaptation to turn it from that kind of long-form philosophical story they could tell on TV, into the more action-orientated fare expected by cinema audiences. The Next Generation movies in particular are an abject lesson in the danger of trying to fit square pegs into round holes. They lost something in translation.

My instinct has always been that Star Trek works fine in the cinema, but that the format feels more at home on TV. But that doesn't make the movies invalid by any means. They're both just two different kinds of story-telling.

 

[urbandefault]

Short answer: Yes.

 

[Greg Cox]

STAR TREK movies have been a thing for nearly forty years. At this point, it's probably fair to say that it's been known to work as both a movie or a tv series.

And then there's the books and comics . . .

 

[marlboro]

I don't think it's ideally suited for big budget summer blockbusters. There is just too much "dumbing down" to appeal to a general audience. There are a lot of action oriented episodes that would have made fine movies, but by the time they are given the Hollywood treatment (cornball humor, hyperactive camera movement etc) they would probably end up worse than the tv versions.

It's really a shame that the TNG movies couldn't have been big budget versions of Yesterdays' Enterprise or Best of Both Worlds or similar quality stories. I think audiences would have accepted films that were a little more in tune with the tone of the series without turning them into popcorn movies. At least back in the 90s. Now people seem to have the attention spans of goldfish.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't think it's ideally suited for big budget summer blockbusters. There is just too much "dumbing down" to appeal to a general audience. There are a lot of action oriented episodes that would have made fine movies, but by the time they are given the Hollywood treatment (cornball humor, hyperactive camera movement etc) they would probably end up worse than the tv versions.

On the other hand, I remember the same criticisms being leveled at THE WRATH OF KHAN back in 1982: it was less "cerebral" than TMP, it was just a shoot-em-up pitting the crew against a super-villain with a doomsday weapon, it was too violent and action-packed, they had dumbed down TREK for the masses, etc.

And yet it's now regarded as possibly the best TREK movie ever.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Theres just something about hearing/reading that a new Star Trek movie is in the works that gives me excitement/chills every time.. just that term 'star trek movie'

 

[Aurora-7]

On the other hand, I remember the same criticisms being leveled at THE WRATH OF KHAN back in 1982: it was less "cerebral" than TMP, it was just a shoot-em-up pitting the crew against a super-villain with a doomsday weapon, it was too violent and action-packed, they had dumbed down TREK for the masses, etc.

And yet it's now regarded as possibly the best TREK movie ever.

Not by everyone. It's all a matter of one's opinion. I'm of the one where the movies are 'watered down' Trek.

Everyone love's a big action film but that's not Trek's strong suite.

 

[donners22]

I'll happily accept a somewhat more mainstream presentation if it means experiencing the thrill of sitting in a packed theatre on opening night (or better yet, a preview screening).

Seeing Trek on the big screen with a large budget, and surrounded by many other fans, is an experience that televised Trek cannot match.

 

[The Wormhole]

While it's true Star Trek works best as a TV show, it can work pretty damn well as movies as well. I dare say the TOS movies provided many a fine film.

 

[shapeshifter]

Hey, Trek outlived both Jason and Micheal Myers so it must be doing something right.

 

[BillJ]

And yet it's now regarded as possibly the best TREK movie ever.

And some of the best Trek ever, ranking as highly as any episode with many fans.

 

[Galileo7]

I've enjoyed it on both TV and on the big screen. So I'd say it is well suited in the right hands.

Agree, it will be very successful when it has the right people at the helm. Paramount has not shepherded the Star Trek film franchise as Disney has done with Marvel. Another '60s television series Mission:Impossible has been a successful film franchise too.

 

[KyleRaynous]

On the other hand, I remember the same criticisms being leveled at THE WRATH OF KHAN back in 1982: it was less "cerebral" than TMP, it was just a shoot-em-up pitting the crew against a super-villain with a doomsday weapon, it was too violent and action-packed, they had dumbed down TREK for the masses, etc.

WOK structure was retained in most subsequent films simply because it was the most effective formula. In movie format, Star Trek works only as an entertaining action blockbuster. But that doesn't mean it necessarily has to abandon a "cerebral" plot. The problem with TMP was the fact that it was too much like 2001 in several areas, while forgetting some aspects that made Star Trek popular. A more appropriate point of reference within such type of sci-fi films would be Interstellar or Arrival (speaking of modern sci-fi hits), movies with smart plots yet attached to sentimentalisms engaging for audiences.

 

[Nerys Myk]

STAR TREK movies have been a thing for nearly forty years. At this point, it's probably fair to say that it's been known to work as both a movie or a tv series.

And then there's the books and comics . . .

Books you say...

 

[velour]

Trek was conceived as a television drama to explore contemporary issues in the mask of Sci Fi. I think the character and story development that makes Trek great is better suited to television. The movies with the TOS cast and TNG cast all felt like overblown TV episodes to me.

While I wish the Kelvinverse Trek followed some of the design philosophies of TOS Trek a little more, those movies at least felt like movies. I enjoyed every one.

But Trek is best on TV.

Some of the TOS movies and all of the TNG movies did come across as glorified tv episodes.

None of the Trek movies, except for TMP and maybe TWOK, had an epic or grand vibe, imo. In that regard, the Trek movies pale in comparison to the Star War movies, which did seem grand and certainly fitting for the big screen.

This is not to say that the Trek movies were not enjoyable to watch on the big screen. I enjoyed watching most of the Trek movies; but -- except for the first two TOS movies -- I felt they could just as well have been a 2 part episode.

 

[Nyotarules]

I prefer the novels, more characters, more aliens, bigger universe

 

[Jayson1]

I think TOS works well as movies both in original cast and reboot forum. It lends itself better to escapism entertainment. On some level Kirk has always been seen s a action hero which is the type of character that plays well at the movie's.

Jason