Lessons to be learned from the Kelvin Universe Films

I loved The Last Jedi (and Into Darkness), so I'm good

 

Doubtful.

Also, Last Jedi as a disappointment depends on who you ask.

 

If Kurtzman n team are producing Picard it will most likely be bad. Sincerely hope not, but track record w Discovery makes me think it will

 

You do realize that Kurtzman is not responsible for the whole of Discovery, right? Or that he is the sole show runner of Picard?

 

Maybe, maybe not. Kurtzman n bad robot took over Discovery from Fuller behind the scenes before season 1 launched. He is the driving force/"visionary" behind ST n CBS AA, unfortunately ......

 

Kurtzman yes. JJ Abrams' Bad Robot, no. It's Kurtzman's production company Secret Hideout.

 

Kurtzman isn't Bad Robot. He is now that driving force, but he didn't start it. He also has five other people assisting.

 

It was definitely imo a case of IP mismanagement. The circumstances were right for Star Trek '09 to happen exactly when it did, and it feels like after the gamble actually paid off and people reacted positively to it, nobody knew what to do next. Paramount is not wholly innocent either. Like all Star Trek movies before and since, Paramount never has a 'grand plan', they always green light the next movie based on the performance of the current one, forcing creators into creating episodic stories instead of preparing grand arching plans. This is something that has torpedoed ST movies creatively for decades. So as a way of hedging their bets, Paramount insists on each movie standing alone, no great creative vision, and yes, Abrams and co were clearly not investing in this emotionally, but part of the problem comes from Paramount treating Star Trek like a sausage factory instead of planning out a franchise. STID was the result of people who were not under contract, but were basically day players handed the reigns to Star Trek and not really having a passion for it anymore. Four years is a long time for interest to fade from the not we (the casual audience who, let's face it, are crucial to any of these being a commercial success) and that's exactly what happened. The revitalized interest in the franchise after the surprise success of '09 was not served up again to the expectant public while it was still hot, and four whole years later STID was a tepid, reheated mess of a meal. I still contend Beyond was a definite uptick, but the damage was done by then. Something like BEY was the movie they *should* have followed '09 with, and sooner than STID's four year gap.

 

One thing I would add to this is dismal marketing for BEY. Despite the fact that BEY was being released on an important anniversary for the franchise, there was very little noise made about it. The anniversary of the beginning of the franchise should have been important, but from anything I saw in what little advertising there was, you would never have known it. I think I saw some mention of stuff at SDCC, but lots of people don't go to that, or bother to track down the happenings there. That year, I didn't get out to see very many movies, so therefore I missed out on the pre-screening trailers in the theatres - I honestly don't know when they started showing the trailers. Three months before it came out, I had to be reminded that there was a Star Trek movie coming out that year. Never mind that the first trailer that was released upset many of the traditional fans.

 

Oh for sure. And yes, that first trailer also was not representative of what the tone of the actual movie was... I don't totally blame it, movie trailers in general tend not to represent the movie very well tbh, but Beyond was a movie that was definitely trying to veer more towards a traditional Trek feel, philosophically and literally, and the trailer just made it look like brainless popcorn fodder. I think really the trailer needed to have leant more heavily on the 50th anniversary of Star Trek angle.

 

1. Story is King. These movies had great moments, but Star Trek was the only original of the bunch. Outside of the Kobiashi Maru, the names and acting, a completely unique story was told in the first film. Sulu being trained in fencing felt like listening to Alicia Keys first album--classically trained pianist steeped in the history of music, but managing to work in the new.

By comparison, Star Trek Into Darkness is unoriginal. Khan is the antagonist, lines straight out of II, a Prime Directive conflict ending in worship, Carol Marcus is in the Khan movie. Harry Mudd and the Gorn are mentioned. Tossing together consequences for Kirk that result in four ranks in 18 minutes. Worse yet, it ripped off the first one--space-jumping, Nero's actions interpreted by 31, a bar scene and hitting on a girl. It's too early to get sentimental.

The worst sin is the lack of growth in Kirk. He is arrogant, young, unlikable. He obsesses over his father. A good beginning of the character, but he never grows into the chair. He's unsure of his place in society, his potential for growth, wasted for a revenge motif and theme that is the most unoriginal aspect of Into Darkness.

The third was slow, again, destroying the ship, and its motivations (why does he want this weapon, again?) are ludicrous.

Tell a story. We watch these movies more than once.

 

Character is king. All story should flow from character.

 

Agree, start with great/strong characters then give them a strong story = Gold

 

and if you distill this three film series down to character, it's the journey of young, immature kirk to mature captain kirk.

@HaventGotALife mentions kirk's lack of progress in into darkness and he is correct, the character is stuck in neutral from 09 to 3/4 of the way into darkness, but that marks the point where the character begins to grow. beyond represents the crystallization of that growth, questioning and learning why that growth was necessary.

these movies are the story of the growth of asshole kirk into the character we know, respect, and love.

 

He was more mature in Beyond, but he's bored. He tries to leave the Enterprise. He doesn't want to explore, and that, is not the character we love. He is capable, talented and the movies are aware of the fact he needs to grow. But, I think he'd want to join Krull's military, and temptation would be more interesting, and then embracing exploration, why he's out here. And, the impetus of seasoned Kirk, almost losing the Enterprise crew, is violent and heavy-handed. He screws up...a lot, to get there.

 

kirk being tempted to join a villain would be really interesting, but might be extreme for the sort of "iconic" characterization these movies went for.

my read on kirk though was that he grew into the chair into darkness, but needed his own motivations to keep him there, which he ostensibly gained in beyond. but it's about as deep as summer action fare gets, so while i think these movies are a character study, they're mostly made to just be fun. which they succeeded in doing, for the most part.

 

I agree about the movies being action films, which colored my initial interpretation of Beyond as a good, not great, film. What has changed is that Beyond is not the only Star Trek available, which I think drove fans to dislike them more (this is the best we can do with this universe??), and Pine left, leaving Beyond a swan song, and not just the latest installment. They revitalized the franchise, and for that, I will forever be grateful. Without these movies, Discovery, Picard, 31, never transpire. They showed that Star Trek was popular, again, and it would've been terrible if Star Trek had sat out this era of Science Fiction Fantasy. Just imagine Episode VII and Rogue One without Trek? We'd be going nuts, re-hashing, and glamorizing, all that came before, crying in our bloodwines about where Star Trek went wrong?

Thank you to this cast for making it a better reality.

 

Re: Kirk's character arc

My feeling is not so much that he's out of character or even particularly bored by space exploration, but more that this is a Kirk whose dad died before he was born and who basically joined Starfleet on a dare from Captain Pike. But at his core is this event that Prime Kirk doesn't have, the death of his father in battle, and it kind of defines him by proxy. Every day he spends in space is another day reminding him of this. I can see how somebody like that would be like, bugger this, maybe working a desk job is more my thing. There's a small part of me that wishes the movie had ended that way, just to give the trilogy closure, with Jim going through a TMP/TWOK style change of heart about commanding a ship again if another movie came along, but then they weren't to know this was going to be the last one when they made it.

 

He's a rebel without a cause. He's supposed to channel that into Starfleet, a higher sense of purpose--exploration. But, instead, he cares for his friends, his crew, and saving the universe from destruction. Again, why not join Krall's military?

Because he never finds exploring to be worthwhile, he never channels his thrills into it, he becomes listless and bored.
Much of the franchise he listens to no one but himself. He continues to ruminate about his dad's death until the close of the franchise. It is a stagnant part of his character.

Building on this arc, he is a thrill seeker. He is challenged to do better, somewhere along the way, he has to discover something to keep him in the chair. He needs a moment of crystalization of why he's out here. In service of Pike's death, he should do some soul searching. "How do I become the Captain you saw in me?" "Where is my greatness?" "Who am i?"

Then, again, as he loses his ship, he should be agitated, frustrated that he is back where he was shortly after Pike's death. "I became the Captain you saw in me, now I have failed. Am I a great Captain?"

He accepts he is both great and can fail, as I said before, in discussions with another command-level officer, Sulu. He is also a father, and so his discussions tap into the two relationships--what he took from George Kirk and Christopher Pike. He has to summarize all three--George, Jim, and Chris, and their relationship to the chair, being a leader so we can compare, contrast them, Jim ultimately being the best version of the three, as he learned the greatness of great Captain's, and added himself to the frontier.

All this soul searching off-screen that earns the crashed hull of the Enterprise, means Kirk faces an earlier version of himself thinking the military may have been his option. On the 50th anniversary, he redefines Starfleet to those who only want a "peacekeeping and humanitarian Armada," in defense of Starfleet's charter "to seek out new life and new civilizations."

Why be explorers and not military men?

Beyond needed a clearer vision of Kirk. It needed a starker contrast to Krall. It needed Kirk to feel he failed, again, although this time, he was wrong.

Then...have Kirk see Gary Mitchell in 4. He gives him all the exploration he can handle, but that is a what-if for another day.

 

Kirk isn't bored in Beyond, he's disillusioned. There's a huge difference.