she only wrote the teleplay/screenplay for part 2. The story and plotting was done by others.
It wasn’t very good. One of the worst Shorts.
Paramount/JJ trying another Trek movie (that will probably never get made).
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
she only wrote the teleplay/screenplay for part 2. The story and plotting was done by others.
It wasn’t very good. One of the worst Shorts.
Who would be the audience? What appeal does that have to the average movie goer? Hell, what appeal does it have to more than about 1% of Trek fans?
There will never be a Star Trek movie that doesn't focus on the TOS characters. Even the TNG movies were forced, and flopped miserably by the end.
Can I make a minor correction to your statement and say that Anson Mount should carry a film!
I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount pulled a Star Trek: Beyond on us with the marketing and ran away from the Star Trek brand with a movie like that.
Maybe it doesn't. Try it anyway.
TOS works in movies to a degree. TNG really doesn't. What they need is something that works for them. Completely. So it has to be something besides those two. Turn it into a star vehicle like the Mission: Impossible movies did, and then you have a Star Trek film series that's completely native to the films. The Abrams Trilogy was part of the way there, but not all of the way there.
You can keep Kirk, keep Spock, have everyone else be new characters, and no one who doesn't follow Star Trek will know the difference. Make it a Keanu Reeves movie first (just as an example) and a Star Trek movie second, and those people will be thinking of it as going to a Keanu Reeves movie that just happens to be Star Trek. A Tarantino-directed Trek movie would've been a similar idea: a Tarantino movie first, a Star Trek movie second.
The trick is they'd have to bank on the right movie star.
A Strange New Worlds film actually wouldn't be too too far from this. Anson Mount as Pike. Pike would effectively be like Kirk to John Q Public. Spock is Spock. And then everyone else, to them, would be totally new characters. If Anson Mount were a bigger name, and it wasn't called the "Prime Timeline", SNW would actually fit what I suggested above perfectly. Except, once they'd have cinematic success, why would they go back to making SNW as a TV series? So I think, for that reason, an SNW film wouldn't happen.
You can keep Kirk, keep Spock, have everyone else be new characters, and no one who doesn't follow Star Trek will know the difference. Make it a Keanu Reeves movie first (just as an example) and a Star Trek movie second, and those people will be thinking of it as going to a Keanu Reeves movie that just happens to be Star Trek. A Tarantino-directed Trek movie would've been a similar idea: a Tarantino movie first, a Star Trek movie second.
The trick is they'd have to bank on the right movie star.
A Strange New Worlds film actually wouldn't be too too far from this. Anson Mount as Pike. Pike would effectively be like Kirk to John Q Public. Spock is Spock. And then everyone else, to them, would be totally new characters. If Anson Mount were a bigger name, and it wasn't called the "Prime Timeline", SNW would actually fit what I suggested above perfectly. Except, once they'd have cinematic success, why would they go back to making SNW as a TV series? So I think, for that reason, an SNW film wouldn't happen.
Last edited:
Well, supposedly Michelle Yeoh is a popular star that people theoretically like.
Use the movies to real in New fans, make it for mass appeal.
Would like a more cerebral, thinking movie.
Or make it small for the fans.
Would like a more cerebral, thinking movie.
Or make it small for the fans.
Small movies would be streaming.
I daresay that's largely due to the last two films being awful, and the franchise's popularity as a whole being in steep decline. First Contact did fine; if they'd turned out more films like that, and not run the series into the ground on the small screen, it may well have been a different outcome.
A good point to consider. Star Trek's overall popularity was on a downward turn, even at the end of TNG's run it had started, as well as DS9, VOY and ENT (though Season 4 of ENT saw a small turnaround). But, the other side of it is what the fandom told the studio they liked. They liked movies with recognizable, nearly iconic, villains (TWOK, First Contact, and even TUC, to a small degree), as well as fan series like NV and Continues. Then ST 09 came out and made a lot of money.
Are people really surprised by this? Really?
Serious question: apart from being Emperor Georgiou, what else has Michelle Yeoh really done in the last 25 years that makes her a popular star (beyond the scope of Trekkies)?
Crazy Rich Asians is one that was critically successful. She has a popular following still from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" as well its sequel. She is well known enough outside of Trek to make it work. So, why not?
I know. And I thought it was spectacularly bad (I liked part 1 a lot, by the way).
There's nothing wrong with trying to appeal to the mass audience, thats how you get new people in to the franchise, a "Gateway Movie" i suppose.
Most are interested in space battles, action, etc. So ST09 brought that, and it done well.
If you make a movie about some barely known TOS thing, it won't do well because your narrowing your potential audience. Which can be done, but you have to set your budget to suit.
Most are interested in space battles, action, etc. So ST09 brought that, and it done well.
If you make a movie about some barely known TOS thing, it won't do well because your narrowing your potential audience. Which can be done, but you have to set your budget to suit.
If you're referring to this line from the article:
"Vazquez has written on Star Trek: Discovery, and insiders said this is a blind deal for an original movie that she hatched, one that expands her role in the Trek Universe."
They're just saying that Ms. Vasquez' role in the Star Trek franchise is expanding from TV shows to movies. It's not about the character she was named after.
In some fans' minds, Star Trek should only ever try to appeal to an aging fanbase by just giving them more of the same. Any attempt to make it appeal to a wider audience is seen as "Pandering to the lowest common denominator." There's almost this idea that the fanbase will become polluted with casual fans who don't know every detail of the franchise.
What they always forget is that the movies designed to appeal to a wider audience tend to do very well and their success is the reason Star Trek has endured for as long as it has.
Yes, to a degree but I think part of that is because Star Trek is special. It's fascinating to me on a psychological level how much value is placed on to Star Trek in terms of its uniqueness. It had a level of speaking to fans that is very precious, in almost a sacred way at times. So, it isn't just "pandering to the lowest common denominator" but also taking something extremely special and taking away some of its specialness. I think part of it is the fact that Star Trek fans feel this loyalty that they stuck with it even when Star Trek wasn't all that popular, so when others come along it feels very invasive. Star Trek can't do mass appeal because that's not what Star Trek is supposed to be about. Except, Star Trek was all about celebrating differences, not withholding information for only the select few.
I disagree. The more fans the merrier. And I can guarantee that TOS was intended to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, not just a small clan.
Similar threads
