Is Trek Well Suited to Movies?

[suarezguy]

The basic/general format of Trek is that the characters are already on a mission in deep space (so there's already some previous adventures setting the background rather than starting from new) and that the end of the individual story doesn't do a whole lot to change the status quo, those elements are much more suited to television and can be a little underwhelming in film (where we generally do want to see a clearer start and/or more climactic ending).
Having a whole crew/senior staff available also points more to ensembles and thus to television rather than films (where in the latter focusing on a few characters makes sense but also feels a little disappointing that others aren't given much to do).

 

[VOODOOXI]

Yes, there have been some great Star Trek movies.

 

[Danoz]

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.

The fact that the TOS and TNG movies feel like big TV episodes is precisely why I like them. Insurrection was one of my favorite Trek movies because it felt like a two-parter with the characters I had come to love so much. It's because they are a continuation of the series.

The new movies are just OK to me. They fit the same model of any comic book CGI-filled reboot weak on character development but heavy in action scenes. The characters and stories are hollow shells of that they seek to emulate.

So my answer is no. Trek needs time to grow, develop characters, explore complex ideas in science fiction and moral ambiguity that surrounds those concepts. Really hoping the new show can do it and is given the time (a solid seven season arch) to do it.

 

[Andy Hong]

1: Trek movies have a bit of a problem in that it seems for action sci-fi you usually have to show somebody in a spaceship shooting something (maybe the only exception was IV: The Voyage Home, though they did have quite a few space sequences (Slingshot time warp, all the ships getting disabled by the Whale Probe). Even if it's for just a few seconds, or possibly for many minutes. Actually, since Undiscovered Country onwards, you need to have a space battle sequence of some kind. Whereas plenty of Trek TV episodes (all series) don't require anyone shooting anything (especially philosophical or mystery or investigation episodes).
2: Trek movies also can't focus on a single character or two (aka "Good Troi Episode" as TV Tropes used to call it). Whereas a series can focus, so you can have a Dr. Crusher episode, a Riker episode, a Worf one etc. Though this applied more to TNG onwards, and not so much the TOS (Kirk, Spock, McCoy focus, and maybe one or two of Sulu, Uhura, Chekov and Scotty).
3: Maybe a budget of $100m or less? (I think I saw this suggestion on the internet in an article somewhere?). This would likely require fewer External scenes (planets?) and certain stunts (Beyond motorcycle).

 

[Lance]

The fact that the TOS and TNG movies feel like big TV episodes is precisely why I like them. Insurrection was one of my favorite Trek movies because it felt like a two-parter with the characters I had come to love so much. It's because they are a continuation of the series.

The new movies are just OK to me. They fit the same model of any comic book CGI-filled reboot weak on character development but heavy in action scenes. The characters and stories are hollow shells of that they seek to emulate.

So my answer is no. Trek needs time to grow, develop characters, explore complex ideas in science fiction and moral ambiguity that surrounds those concepts. Really hoping the new show can do it and is given the time (a solid seven season arch) to do it.

This actually raises an interesting point that I hadn't thought of before.

The first 10 movies in the Star Trek franchise had an inherent, in-built advantage by being based directly on TV shows, featuring the same cast members and characters from those TV shows, and explicitly taking place as a continuation of them. Some of the movies may have been disappointing, but all of them had the benefit of those characters having been explored and developed on TV. On their own, some of the TOS and TNG movies may feel hollow or like they don't use the cast very effectively, but when you add them to the years of character growth we've seen these people undergo on TV, it adds emotional impact and helps to paper the cracks in the plot. The death of Spock in The Wrath of Khan is poignant no matter what, but it is undeniably given more impact by the preceeding 79 episodes (and 1 movie) where we got to see Shatner and Nimoy develop and strengthen the bond between those two characters. In that sense, the TV shows actually make the movies stronger.

The 2009 movie, although it uses alternative versions of established Trek characters, is arguably the first time in the movies that we were witnessing those things being established by a brand new cast entirely on the big screen. The Kelvin-verse may use the TOS characters, but it does so without the foundation of seeing those actors grow into their dynamic on television first. In some ways it relies on us carrying over our affections for the characters from old actor to new actor, but nevertheless they are still remaking them out of whole cloth before our eyes. So to speak. STID's "homage" to the Wrath of Khan death scene can never have the same impact as the original, because we as an audience aren't quite as invested in these new versions of the characters as we might be with the ones we saw in three seasons on TV.

 

[photon70]

At the sort of budgets tent pole movies have, Star Trek becomes another generic 'save the world, kill the bad guy' movie.

I've said it before. A series of away missions would be an awesome movie.

Imagine if the opening acts of STiD and STB were combined and expanded into a single full movie.

It is what is uniquely Star Trek.

Add a hi-brow sci-fi concept away mission, a medical emergency away mission to help some colonists and an action packed mission to intercept and destroy some Klingon pirates; and you've ticked all the boxes for a fun summer flick.

Show what a Starfleet Captain, crew and ship is for. A 'peace keeping and humanitarian armada'.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Is Trek Well Suited to Movies?

Yes. I've enjoyed quite a few ST films in the theater a great deal:

TMP
TWOK
TSFS
TVH
STXI

And I've also had a good time watching others:

TUC
FC
STB

So, that's what? Most of them? Pretty successful movie series for me personally!

 

[Andy Hong]

Oh yeah, have we seen a briefing/conference room on the Kelvin timeline Enterprise (like on the TOS Enterprise or (a lot more) in TNG)? There was that room Kirk and Bones had their drink in near the start of Beyond, and there was that conference room in Into Darkness before Khan shot it up. But in the Kelvin-verse movies the characters seem to discuss problems on the bridge or while walking?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But in the Kelvin-verse movies the characters seem to discuss problems on the bridge or while walking?

They did that in TWOK: Kirk, Spock, and Saavik walking up to the bridge after being rescued from the planetoid.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Oh yeah, have we seen a briefing/conference room on the Kelvin timeline Enterprise (like on the TOS Enterprise or (a lot more) in TNG)? There was that room Kirk and Bones had their drink in near the start of Beyond, and there was that conference room in Into Darkness before Khan shot it up. But in the Kelvin-verse movies the characters seem to discuss problems on the bridge or while walking?

It's much more visually interesting to watch characters talking while walking through the ship as opposed to standing still in a turbolift (hence replacing the turbolift off the bridge with a corridor) or sitting around a table.

 

[Danoz]

At the sort of budgets tent pole movies have, Star Trek becomes another generic 'save the world, kill the bad guy' movie.

Agree. This is actually my biggest beef with the Kelvin Universe movies. They feel like comic strip super heroes in the latest Marvel reboot, fighting evil mustache-twirling villains.

Benedict Cumberbatch was victim of a weak script. Where's is Khan's humor? His humanity? His love of poetry and art? His passion and belief in the rightness of his cause that made the original Khan one of great nemesis in science fiction?

Don't get me started on Nero. The Picard-clone was a more interesting.

But here's the deal. Cheap, comic book heroes with special effects and lopsided action is clearly what the people want. If you want good science fiction today, you can find it (District 9, Arrived, Westworld) or pick up a book (The Silo series is phenomenal, DS9 relaunch if you're hungry for Trek). But it's not going to be in the Kelvin-verse.

They're fun, pop-corn chomping movies. But don't expect anything that approaches thought-provoking science fiction or you'll be bitterly disappointed.

 

[Andy Hong]

It's much more visually interesting to watch characters talking while walking through the ship as opposed to standing still in a turbolift (hence replacing the turbolift off the bridge with a corridor) or sitting around a table.

Yeah, but you can't really have more than 3 people walking or turbolifting at once. I think the last staff meeting they had was in Nemesis, where, after fleeing Romulus, Picard orders the Enterprise-E to Battle Stations.

 

[Andy Hong]

Agree. This is actually my biggest beef with the Kelvin Universe movies. They feel like comic strip super heroes in the latest Marvel reboot, fighting evil mustache-twirling villains.

Benedict Cumberbatch was victim of a weak script. Where's is Khan's humor? His humanity? His love of poetry and art? His passion and belief in the rightness of his cause that made the original Khan one of great nemesis in science fiction?

Don't get me started on Nero. The Picard-clone was a more interesting.

But here's the deal. Cheap, comic book heroes with special effects and lopsided action is clearly what the people want. If you want good science fiction today, you can find it (District 9, Arrived, Westworld) or pick up a book (The Silo series is phenomenal, DS9 relaunch if you're hungry for Trek). But it's not going to be in the Kelvin-verse.

They're fun, pop-corn chomping movies. But don't expect anything that approaches thought-provoking science fiction or you'll be bitterly disappointed.

1: This might have been mentioned elsewhere, but maybe Benedict could have been Khan Joachim Singh (so, Khan is a title, so not "My name....is Khan" but "You will address me as.....Khan", and he would have been the adopted son of Khan Noonien Singh (this would have screwed up the canon somewhat, he might not have been born at this point in the Prime timeline, I'm kinda extrapolating from Joachim in Wrath of Khan. Maybe he isn't as brilliant as Noonien but he was less emotional and more level headed - he would have escaped with the Genesis device and not entered the Mutara Nebula.
2: Nero: "I'm going to destroy these planets, cos revenge?" Plus I'm going to wait 20 years to do it with the Red Matter, and not think of something else to destroy them? It was weird how the screenplay has Nero and crew bumming around for 20 years or so? It might have made more sense story-wise if the ramming by the USS Kelvin shoved the Narada partially back into the black hole, which then destabilised in time and space, and spat the Narada out years later? Maybe?
3: Darn, "But don't expect anything that approaches thought-provoking science fiction or you'll be bitterly disappointed"?.... Maybe I shouldn't have written my fanfic screenplay that way!

 

[VulcanMindBlown]

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.

I agree with all of this!!!!

 

[Desert Kris]

My feeling is that Star Trek is flexible enough for many different formats, and in the right hands can be adapted effectively. In a TV series they can tell all kinds of diffferent stories, and try out a different style or tone without that being definitive for the whole show.

The movies can show us grand visuals, and maybe have major changes happening with the characters and situations. The movies are capable of cereberal, with the right person conceptualizing the story.

The books can suggest amazing visuals, if the reader can imagine it in their head. No bugetary restrictions. Longer stories, and potentially edgier content. They've also been able to really branch out and introduce many original characters, sometimes very far removed from the original TV crews, yet still inhabiting the ST universe.

Comics don't have to worry about budget issues for the kinds of visual they can present. A reader doesn't have to do as much work as with a prose novel. The serialized nature of comics means it can play with the length of a story that doesn't need to be confined to an regular-as-clockwork episode running time. Comics also seemed to have a tendency to not get too locked into a status quo, again part of their serialized storytelling nature. Star Trek can work well in this format as well.

Star Trek is a fictional universe that is all about boldly going to new places and situations, and meeting new people. Which means that it can work well for all these different formats. Even though people feel like ST hasn't lived up to it's full potential in alternative storytelling formats in the past, it might eventually prove that it can work for them in the future.

 

[JonVP]

The Trek universe is certainly suited for movies. I think the problem lies by trying to turn a TV series (like TNG) into a movie franchise.

 

[RomulanCommander]

I think when done well, Star Trek works just as well in the movies as it does as a TV series.

One thing I wish we would see more is less self containment. The best Star Trek movies were Star Trek 2, 3,4, and 6 because they all feel like part of the same greater story arc. Star Trek 1 was great, but it really serves more as a re-introduction to the TOS cast, and Star Trek 5 is...well, what it is.

I think this is largely why the TNG films didn't do as well, aside from First Contact. Other than a few threads here and there, they don't feel all that tied together, and only FC really recalls the TV series in any real meaningful way with the Borg, and even then the Borg are reinvented mildly. They all just feel like episodes of the week. That doesn't mean they are bad movies, or at least I don't feel that way. But the only thing tying Generations to FC is the Enterprise-E. Even Data's emotion chip takes a step back. There really isn't anything tying Generations or FC to the following movies, and the only thing really tying Insurrection to Nemesis is Riker and Troi renewing their relationship, and getting married.

As for the most recent movies since 2009, they start to return to that connection: 2009 introduces us, ID continues the story of Kirk as captain (and even touches on the complaints fans had he rose to captain too fast), and STB shows us a veteran crew, starting to become travel weary. They may not tie together quite as well as the TOS cast, but I think if there is a strength about the Kelvinverse (and despite its lack of intellectual story telling in favor of being action-packed), it is that they at least all seem like chapters of the greater story again. If Star Trek 14 is going to be the last of the Kelvinverse, I would love to see it tie all the other movies together in some way and tie up loose ends.

 

[Vger23]

I think Star Trek is suited for all different kinds of media. And, it's failed as much as a television property as it has as a motion picture franchise (and vise-versa...it's had great successes in both mediums).

I think it's a mistake to believe that Star Trek always has to be pensive, serious, philosophical science fiction. The ship is on a mission exploring the galaxy...this means that any number of encounters could occur. Some might be grand action / adventures. Others might be wondrous tales of scientific achievement and discovery.

The beauty of Star Trek is that it can be effective at all these things (I love TMP as much as I love the Kelvin films, just for different reasons). The ugliness of Star Trek is that some fans have a very narrow sense for what the franchise "should" be, and reject any kind of diversity that strays off that path.

 

[Lance]

I think it's a mistake to believe that Star Trek always has to be pensive, serious, philosophical science fiction. The ship is on a mission exploring the galaxy...this means that any number of encounters could occur. Some might be grand action / adventures. Others might be wondrous tales of scientific achievement and discovery.

I do tend to agree with this. And it's worth noting that despite people throwing their toys out of the cot any time a new piece of Star Trek focuses on rock 'em sock 'em action over 'cerebral science fiction', the truth is that TOS frequently used blatant fists-to-the-floor action, sometimes as a cover for philosophical themes but other times simply for the drama of putting our heroes in danger.

It sometimes feels to me like some elements within the fandom seem to have redefined their conception of Star Trek at around the same time that Roddenberry himself did, ie TNG onwards, and that things like Apollo's Giant Space Hand (tm) threatening the Enterprise suddenly became "silly", rather than a simple element of the strangeness and danger of space that TOS depicted.

Star Trek is many things. It isn't some strictly defined, homogenized thing. Or at least, it shouldn't be.