How epic should a Star Trek movie be?

[The Overlord]

I'm not sure if this topic should be here or the other movie forum, but since this forum deals with new movies, I put it here.

How epic should a Star Trek movie be? Some people have said the JJ Arbrams films focus too much on spectacle, but something like Star Trek Insurrection tried to be cerebral, but was underwhelming and felt like a bad two part TNG episode, rather then a cinematic experience.

The Star Wars movies seem to be successful by being suitably epic, but Star Trek is not Star Wars and has to do its own thing.

 

[BillJ]

How epic should a Star Trek movie be?

As epic as it needs to be for the given creator to tell the story they want to tell. I'm really flexible where Star Trek is concerned. Because the format lends to flexibility.

 

[The Overlord]

How epic should a Star Trek movie be?

As epic as it needs to be for the given creator to tell the story they want to tell. I'm really flexible where Star Trek is concerned. Because the format lends to flexibility.

Sure, but we still need a story that feels like a cinematic experience, not just a throw away episode from one of the TV shows.

This why Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country feels like a movie and something like Insurrection feels like a bad TNG two parter. Star trek 4 was light hearted, but there were real stakes at play, compare that to Insurrection, where the TNG crew has to save a planet of pretty ageless white people, who we never heard of and will never hear from again. The fact that there are only 600 Ba'ku and this seems like a small stakes affair, not a cinematic experience.

 

[BillJ]

Sure, but we still need a story that feels like a cinematic experience, not just a throw away episode from one of the TV shows.

This why Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country feels like a movie and something like Insurrection feels like a bad TNG two parter. Star trek 4 was light hearted, but there were real stakes at play, compare that to Insurrection, where the TNG crew has to save a planet of pretty ageless white people, who we never heard of and will never hear from again. The fact that there are only 600 Ba'ku and this seems like a small stakes affair, not a cinematic experience.

I think conceptually, there is nothing wrong with Insurrection. The direction came off as pretty tepid, and the story had an odd morality of putting the concerns of 600 hundred people over billions of others.

It probably needed to be Picard vs. Riker.

 

[The Overlord]

Sure, but we still need a story that feels like a cinematic experience, not just a throw away episode from one of the TV shows.

This why Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country feels like a movie and something like Insurrection feels like a bad TNG two parter. Star trek 4 was light hearted, but there were real stakes at play, compare that to Insurrection, where the TNG crew has to save a planet of pretty ageless white people, who we never heard of and will never hear from again. The fact that there are only 600 Ba'ku and this seems like a small stakes affair, not a cinematic experience.

I think conceptually, there is nothing wrong with Insurrection. The direction came off as pretty tepid, and the story had an odd morality of putting the concerns of 600 hundred people over billions of others.

It probably needed to be Picard vs. Riker.

Now that would have been an epic movie, with real stakes and consequences and something we never saw before, unlike what we got with Insurrection, which was very by the numbers Trek.

I just think there was to be cinematic quality to a Star Trek movie, so it does feel like a movie and not a throwaway TV episode.

 

[M'Sharak]

How epic should a Star Trek movie be?

Depends on the particular story being told, more than anything else.

I'm not sure if this topic should be here or the other movie forum, but since this forum deals with new movies, I put it here.

How epic should a Star Trek movie be? Some people have said the JJ Arbrams films focus too much on spectacle, but something like Star Trek Insurrection tried to be cerebral, but was underwhelming and felt like a bad two part TNG episode, rather then a cinematic experience.

The Star Wars movies seem to be successful by being suitably epic, but Star Trek is not Star Wars and has to do its own thing.

Since we're essentially talking about a hypothetical movie here, rather than about either of the nuTrek movies already released or the one currently in production, I'd suggest Future of Trek as a likely forum for a topic such as this. I can move it there, if you like.

 

[The Overlord]

How epic should a Star Trek movie be?

Depends on the particular story being told, more than anything else.

I'm not sure if this topic should be here or the other movie forum, but since this forum deals with new movies, I put it here.

How epic should a Star Trek movie be? Some people have said the JJ Arbrams films focus too much on spectacle, but something like Star Trek Insurrection tried to be cerebral, but was underwhelming and felt like a bad two part TNG episode, rather then a cinematic experience.

The Star Wars movies seem to be successful by being suitably epic, but Star Trek is not Star Wars and has to do its own thing.

Since we're essentially talking about a hypothetical movie here, rather than about either of the nuTrek movies already released or the one currently in production, I'd suggest Future of Trek as a likely forum for a topic such as this. I can move it there, if you like.

Yeah, that sounds good, move it there please. Thanks.

 

[M'Sharak]

OK, one moment. Fasten your seatbelts...

 

[ChristopherPike]

I know how epic I'd like it to be. Sprawling three centuries, centred around one exceptionally long-lived person, coming into contact with three sets of series casts. All Enterprise based. The NX-01, the Abramsverse and likely some kind of altered TNG era... unless the story looped back to the Prime Universe again. One part mystery plot to follow, through a central character's journey across 22nd/23rd/24th Centuries. One part throw everything including the kitchen sink at it, 50th Anniversary fest akin to Doctor Who's a couple of years back.

And that person made unfeasibly ancient by some alien MacGuffin, who brings everything together, should be played by William Shatner.

 

[F. King Daniel]

With a new TV series on the horizon (not to mention five decades of TV episodes under its belt) Trek movies should make the very most of the format, and should never tell the same stories that could be told just as easily on TV (Insurrection, looking at you). Big epic scope, amazing visuals and sequences they could never afford on a weekly basis are a must, IMO.

 

[David.Blue]

In theory, a Trek movie could introduce some fundamental changes to the entire mise-en-scene of its universe. I would argue movies have done so. More than once. It made little difference after the closing credits of the movie, however.

The wiping out of the entire government of the Romulan Star Empire--twice--is almost certainly a case in point. Likewise the development of a weapon capable of destroying entire planets with one shot showed no signs of having any impact on the world at all, at least not after Star Trek III. Just as figuring out the Transporter makes medical doctors and maybe even death obsolete was simply forgotten.

 

[lurok]

Epic isn't in it.

It should be compelling, in terms of character and storytelling. Difficult but not impossible to pull off.

Everything else is frou-frou.

 

[OpenMaw]

It probably needed to be Picard vs. Riker.

Yeah. As SFDebris said, Insurrection should have been the "family fight" that TNG never really had.

 

[Galileo7]

Sure, but we still need a story that feels like a cinematic experience, not just a throw away episode from one of the TV shows.

This why Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country feels like a movie and something like Insurrection feels like a bad TNG two parter. Star trek 4 was light hearted, but there were real stakes at play, compare that to Insurrection, where the TNG crew has to save a planet of pretty ageless white people, who we never heard of and will never hear from again. The fact that there are only 600 Ba'ku and this seems like a small stakes affair, not a cinematic experience.

Absolutely True.

TMP was a cinematic experience 1701-Refit v. V'Ger upon it's 1979 release.

 

[Shalashaska]

Star Trek can have all the action or slow council meetings as you want, but at the end of the day, it needs to have good, thoughtful writing. That's what Trek is about, not about boring your everyday moviegoer and leaving us "mighty intellectuals" happy, but being a thoughtful movie with some sort of social commentary on the issues in our world.

That's the difference between Star Trek '09 and Into Darkness. Both had phaser shootouts, both had explosions, both had fists flying everywhere and fast-paced scenes, but at least '09 had a good script. It was a fun film that retained the essence of Trek. Into Darkness was bland villain man wants to destroy everything story, and remaking Wrath of Khan after doing a safe movie with '09 was a terrible decision. They needed to branch out and come up with a more original, character-driven, deeper story to top the last film, but instead, it went downhill. They needed an Empire to A New Hope, or The Godfather II to The Godfather.

I don't mind action, action is great, but only if it's used to enhance the film and not make it.

 

[Galileo7]

... They needed an Empire to A New Hope, or The Godfather II to The Godfather...

Like WOK to TMP.

 

[Shalashaska]

... They needed an Empire to A New Hope, or The Godfather II to The Godfather...

Like WOK to TMP.

Pretty much. Except they took it too literal and actually made Wrath of Khan again.

 

[martok2112]

I still don't see the TWOK shadow on STID.
Only a couple moments that were echoed does not an entire movie make.

John Harrison/Khan's beef was with StarFleet... not with Earth or the galaxy/Alpha Quadrant at large.

I think if Khan would've succeeded in his goals, he would've taken the Vengeance to some remote planet with his 72 fellow supermen/women, set up his Khanate, and basically wish to be left alone.... well.... long enough to plan his overtaking of the Alpha Quadrant, with the Vengeance as his primary weapon.

That screams more of Space Seed to me than TWOK.

In either case, no matter how much or how little inspiration STID might have drawn from either SS or TWOK, STID still rocked.

Now, that said, I will admit that at first, I was a little off-put by the whole two minute TWOK thing.... but only a little. A second viewing on the big screen immediately eliminated that little irk, and I found the movie extremely fun and enjoyable.

 

[Mudd]

It should be HUGE!!! Balls to the wall!!!! Fuck nuance, blow up more shit!!!!!

 

[Kor]

I'm not sure if this topic should be here or the other movie forum, but since this forum deals with new movies, I put it here.

How epic should a Star Trek movie be? Some people have said the JJ Arbrams films focus too much on spectacle, but something like Star Trek Insurrection tried to be cerebral, but was underwhelming and felt like a bad two part TNG episode, rather then a cinematic experience.

The Star Wars movies seem to be successful by being suitably epic, but Star Trek is not Star Wars and has to do its own thing.

How are you defining "epic?" Visually dazzling action?

Two of my favorite films, "Lawrence of Arabia" and "2001: A Space Odyssey," are very epic and cinematic, but both are quite cerebral, with deliberate pacing and not a lot of thrilling action.

While I have quite enjoyed the roller coaster ride of the NuTrek movies, I wouldn't mind a Trek movie that takes that kind of thoughtful approach (a la TMP, definitely not TNG-preachy).

And that does not preclude being "epic."

Kor