What can the Star Trek movies learn from the recent Star Wars films?

A good villian, or reason (st 4 didn't have villain per se)
Khan in both were good villians, Chang, borg queen.. All good
Nero? Sucked.. Krall? Mega sucked..
If it's going to be multiple movies, then a cohesive idea of what's going on.
So I guess..is that it has a good script, with a good reason and a good bad guy/girl/they/etc.

 

You had me until this point. I love Nero and think, of the villains in Trek's past, he is the most everyman style character.

 

"Hi Christopher, I'm Nero."
Best Trek villain.

 

i HATED that line. Too kewl and hipster. "Informal is cool."

You do you though. Tastes vary.

 

Loved it. Natural...instead of the standard ominous music and snarling Emperor Ming-type introduction. The guy is a blue collar miner, this is exactly what he'd say.

 

Same here. He isn't a cold and calculating commander. He is just a miner, a person, struggling with immense pain. How else is he supposed to talk?

 

I also loved that line! It was surprising, refreshing and disarming - as well as being exactly what Nero would say in character.

Also reinforces the fact that he doesn’t ‘...speak for the Romulan Empire’

 

If you purposefully want to torpedo your billion dollar franchise that prints money, look no further.

The Kelvinverse movies were miles and miles better

 

I was quite sincere about the you do you remark. No sarcasm intended, esp. with the "tastes vary" comment immediately follow. Kewl was not directed at any member of this board, rather a writer/director, and was an expression of my opinion.

And thanks, I will do me, though I perceive intended snarkiness. Be well.

 

According to you, yes; but in real life, the three new Star Wars movies grossed billions at the box office, and the first two of the recent Star Trek movies also did this.

Got any more howlers to post as facts?

 

Are we conflating box office results with quality now? According to that logic, most of the Transformers movies are great films.

 

I do not mean to cause a flame war, but its ''Shaka Zulu who said stuff like:

Is that respectful dialogue on this issue?

All I asked is there anything the Star Trek films can learn from the recent Star Wars films, I don't see why that question should be dismissed as ''howlers posted as facts''.

I also do not think box office results are not always an indication of quality, in my opinion. I was saying in that in response to the post Shaka Zulu made.

 

It doesn't require comment.

Regardless, I think the ST films can learn to be more consistent in their release dates, and willingness to try new things.

Oh, and to not listen to every fan on the Internet.

 

Alright, fair enough.

 

This. So much. I think if there's one thing the sequel trilogy debacle absolutely showed me is how it's possible to screw up legacy characters, even when they're being played by the original actors and everything. And the real pain of it all is that it retroactively stanks out those characters even in the originals. Luke, Han and Leia are characters who as you say generations of fans were invested in, loved by. All gone. How is it possible to care about Luke's hero's journey after you know how fundamentally The Last Jedi screws it up. It isn't just extraordinary, it's almost unbelievable that the powers that be could let that happen. By doing what they did to those three characters, they soured the whole damn franchise.

That's a lesson to learn. Introduce new characters if you have to, do so alongside old ones if a torch passing is desired, but at all costs respect the history and the legacy. If you kill off the old favourites in pointless ways, or, worse, turn them into bitter old men who drink green milk out of alien titties, then you can't be surprised when the entire franchise takes a hit.

When Disney bought Star Wars, they bought a licence to print money. Though mismanagement incompetence and a lack of understanding that something like that needs to be nurtured, they damn near killed the golden goose.

 

Because Luke matters to me, his struggles and depression and all. His arc in TLJ impacts me more now than when watching the OT originally.

I see no reason to always respect legacy. Tell the story you want to tell, and money be damned.

 

While I respect where this point of view comes from, I also feel like if you're going to do it then it has to be in a way that eventually uplifts -- there has to be a coming back, you have to give the character a return to grace. It's easy to imagine a Star Trek: Generations like scenario where you hire Shatner or Takei or Koenig or Nichols and recast their character as living alone in some cabin as a bitter old bastard. Heck, Picard may do it. But the arc needs to close with the old hero rediscovering something in themselves and getting their victory lap. Yes, classic characters deserve that. Luke could have had that. But he didn't. Even in those last moments where he goes and confronts Ren, it's just an astral projection and he dies. Where does Luke grow again? He doesn't. He just becomes depressed, cynical, and then dies. I'm sorry but I feel like Luke deserves better than that. I think Star Wars deserves better. I have got faith that Picard isn't like that. I feel like Jean Luc is going to grow and develop more. Luke went nowhere, did nothing, and didn't mean anything. That's no way to treat such an important legacy character.