If Paramount were to resurrect or reboot the Trek movie franchise, what could they do to make it stand out? Many Kelvin movie gimmicks, like space jumping, gravity failures and grand visual spectacles are now being seen on TV in Discovery, albeit on a slightly reduced scale. Had ST4 been made (and don't get me wrong, I wish SJ Clarkson's ST4 was made), an issue they would have come up against would be, "what makes this different enough from the TV series aside from the specific characters?" which some blame for the weak performance of classic movies V and VI, released when Next Gen was hugely popular. Discovery will never have epic chases through packed San Francisco streets, cars going over cliffs or Space Station Dubai scenes, but is that enough?
Tarantino directing but if not then JJA coming back directing QTs story (if that's even possible now after SW). Some kind of tie in to classic TOS Trek? (e.g. JJcrew encountering CGI deaged versions of the VI era actors on the ENT-A? or something). Borg? .. itd be fun to see Kirk vs the Borg at last (rebooted more Ridley Scott/Gigery than ever. maybe even with a vger connection?) and would be an event (this time promoting the iconic villain), but then it'd have to be another FC shootemup space zombie protect earf from destruction type thing. and maybe too similar to what's been done x3 already idk Bigger than usual name for the villain or prominent supporting character..like Hanks, Arnie, SLJ, Kurt Russell, Michael Keaton etc - although now some of them wouldn't be considered A list now but some of the huge stars from 80s90s SF (obviously If QT was directing youd have some of his regulars in it like SLJ, KR etc) Treks never really had big names in it maybe just give it a go and see what happens (overseas)..
I think the fact they have their own reality gives this trek a tremendous advantage and potential that current TV trek cannot have; they are trapped in the prime timeline canon there, and it can be argued they went a tiny bit too far inserting themselves (=retcons) into a story that was written by others, in a different era. It makes me sad that it seems like everyone but the studio saw the potential this trek, as another reality, had. However, I think there are aspects where trek is still too safe and in an era where other things are doing better, and TV trek too is being far more diverse and a tad more bold, I honestly find it disappointing that the last hope for this trek must be someone like Tarantino, of all the people, whose style is fanboyish pessimistic and too abrasive. It seems like an involution of sorts for me. And I remember his comments about trek, so it really seems like Paramount going backwards if they really want to give this trek to a guy who seems to only be interested about making it the 'kirk show' and copy old tos episodes. Someone who legit said that the ensemble, thus 'having' to do something with Uhura, Mccoy and the others too, is a hindrance for trek. I think that in our time, trek must do better. There are no more excuses, you can't do bare minimum with the characters and still hide behind nostalgia. And 'doing better' really doesn't mean 'let's make it a white dudes show' and erase the little diversity we have in this cast, and pretty much consider the only female character they have 'one too many'. Who knows, maybe he'd surprise me..but I can't pretend his comments and his other works don't, still, give me a clue about how much him and trek make little sense together. The fact he apparently wants to make it R rated doesn't really help me be less prejudiced about him, tbh, and yeah..assume he wants do turn it into kill bill in space. If they wanted to hire a big name, I'd rather them hire someone like Del Toro who believes that being optimistic and giving kids HOPE is, in our age, far more bold and original than constantly serving the audience a neverending, pervasive, pessimism that has the delusion of being automatically more 'cool'. Tarantino is someone I can only imagine being interested about the aspects of trek that don't make it stand out compared to other franchises, tbh. What they need is someone who, rather, can see the potential of space offering a chance to tell stories you cannot tell in the human world and our own time. You need someone who is interested about aliens and looks up to the stars and is convinced we aren't alone in the universe, that there isn't just our world and humans aren't the only 'people'. Someone who is able to imagine what will happen one day when humans will be able to see those worlds.
Epic landscape scenery like The Martian, Interstellar or Prometheus. I would have loved to have spent a bunch of time on Nibiru or even the planet they open the Khan torpedoes on. I guess we spent time on Altamid but the planet wasn't really the focus. This all depends on whether you'd even want to go to a planet but I would. No callbacks to anything. But bring back folks like Jaylah, Keenser or 0718.
We need to have a high-caliber filmmaker who's new to Star Trek, like Tarantino, be given the freedom to make his or her own film, in order to break free of ossified, established, status quo Trek tropes that are strangling the franchise and keeping it from really growing.
Here are some example themes that are already covered in the Kelvin universe movies..... - Revenge - Destiny / Time travel - More revenge - Responsibility - The final frontier 'pushing back'. We also acknowledge that Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise have enriched themselves from their experiences during their 5 year mission. The question is what other theme would be significant enough that has not already been covered in the 3 movies and TOS?
I mentioned this many moons ago: I recall an interview with Kurtzman (I think) and Orci - about the premise of a Trek 09 sequel (pre STiD) possibly having no villain as such, whereby the challenge is space itself - ie: traversing a dangerous area of the galaxy to do [insert reason here]... Instead, we got Into Darkness and Beyond (which had something of this aspect, with the 1701 flying to Altimid), so perhaps this focus could be utilised (broadly speaking) for a fourth movie (if such a thing ever came to pass)?
It would be a coup if they could cut through all the red tape needed to do a movie adaptation of the Star Trek/X-Men crossover comics. Kor
I know so many people who are fed up with Star Wars, and I feel like there could be a way that a Trek film could come in and get the general audience hooked again by being a fun adventure that doesn't need to rehash all of the same storylines that Star Wars does. If it could capitalize on that frustration while also being hopeful, it might be a good time to get back in that game. But I'd still give it some time for that stuff to really play out while also making sure the new shows have everything they need to be a massive success.
I would love something like Interstellar in the Star Trek universe. I actually love the Kelvinverse films. But something big, smart, slowly drawn out. That would have me, but not sure if it would bring in a new audience. I think the movies will be on the back burner for awhile. I have a feeling that the QT movie will fall by the wayside. If the merger goes through with Viacom and CBS, I am sure they will have Kurtzman be in control of both TV and the movies. Then he would hire writers to work on scripts. Hopefully, there would be tie in between the movie and tv properties. They could try to slowly build up the movie universe again. Try and have more than one project in development at a time.
The reboot movies have already developed an identity as being action/adventure orientated with diminishing results so you wouldn't have to tweak it too radically to make it stand out. But what I would like to see a traditional Star Trek story of encountering some strange life form - like V'Ger or the whale probe to use an example - basically bringing back some sci-fi to Star Trek to give it a unique selling point and make it less like a Transformers or Marvel style flashy, CGI heavy movie. All that being said, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say the Kelvin universe is dead at this point and isn't coming back.
A lot of people still think trek and star wars are the same thing. You gotta try to give them exactly the stuff star wars cannot give them and it's more simple than it seems. For one, show the ship and life on a SPACEship. Focus on the ensemble (give people more than a subplot to focus on and very dynamic characters) and less on a 'solo' type of story. Show aliens and different worlds, set it in space and show how infinite it is. You have a great ship, show us more of it than just the bridge. Give us a sense of how big it is internally, like a moving city with different 'places' and a lot of people with different functions living there. Give us a sense of...future astronauts living on a very advanced spaceship. Make adults and kids wish to have a job like that. This is what trek CAN do that star wars and others cannot do because it wouldn't fit with their stories. The more I think about it, beyond destroying the Enterprise right ar the beginning was a mistake for me. That fact alone made the movie seem like it was similar to other movies ..and the Franklin couldn't replace the enterprise. That tiny, dark, vintage ship is Iike watching them on the millennium falcon or the ship they have in guardians of the galaxy, and it probably was deliberate to give the audience that impression..but trying to make it look like other things backfires in this case. Trek is about explorers who literally live on huge, very advanced, spaceships. If you take the ship away, you remove, IMO, one of the main appeals trek could have nowadays that others cannot have. You remove the very thing that could make some kids want to watch it.
Star Trek is NEVER going to be able to compete on the spectacle level with concurrent blockbusters. Star Trek 2009 made a valiant effort - but as you said, that shit's now on tv, and superhero movies deliver bombastic, world ending battles and personal fights Star Trek - not even frickin' STAR WARS - will ever be able to match again. There's really only one way Trek movies can stand out - and that's friggin' directing. A good director with enough skill and preparation can make a single space walk be a more intense and heart-wrenching experience than hundreds of superheroes smashing into each other. And you don't need big budgets to have convincing characters and drama - hell, it might be beneficial if the stakes aren't "save the worlds from computer-animated evil incarnate" But yeah - the only way a future Trek movie can stand out, is if it tries to go into the Interstellar-Gravity-Prometheus-Oblivion-The Martian-niché of slightly more grounded SF spectacles, that deliver on a coherent vision moreso than on action.
If it were to be a Kelvin-verse movie, I'd honestly hope for a visual jump. With the introduction of a 'new' Enterprise-A, maybe ditch the TOS inspired uniforms and dress everyone in something inspired by the TOS movies instead. I feel like the movies do need a visual reboot of sorts at this point. And something where everybody wears red would obviously contrast with DSC where everyone wears blue.
If we want to go lowest possible denominator, you'd team Trek up with one of Paramount's highest grossing franchises: TRANSFORMERS! Have a galaxy-spanning adventure where the Federation is helping the Autobots fend off a Decepticon invasion (oh, hell, they've joined forces with the BORG!!!) You could have space battles, transforming Starfleet vessels completely trashing urban environments in planet side battle, EXPLOSIONS! Have Chris Pine team up with Mark Wahlberg, Michael Bay in the director chair... we're talking multiple-BILLION dollars at the box office! Huzzah! I kid of course, but I could see Paramount doing this to get asses in seats for maximum profits!