Recent Hits as a Potential Direction for Trek Movies

[Eric Cheung]

I don't really care too much about canon, but the Star Trek movies tend not to do what Trek does at its best: meld social commentary, science fiction, and pathos for engaging stories about engaging characters in a story that inspires awe and intelligent problem-solving.

I saw The Martian this weekend and loved it. Why can't we have a Star Trek movie like that? The budgets for Gravity and Interstellar are comparable to, or smaller than, the last two Trek films, yet were much bigger hits. And a Trek version wouldn't need expensive stars like Clooney, Damon, and McConaughey.

Gravity: Budget $100 million, Domestic Gross $274,092,705, Foreign Gross $449,100,000, Worldwide Gross $723,192,705

Interstellar: Budget $165 million, Domestic Gross $188,020,017, Foreign Gross $487,000,000, Worldwide Gross $675,020,017

The Martian (opening weekend): Budget $108 million, Domestic Gross $55,000,000, Foreign Gross $45,200,000, Worldwide Gross $100,200,000

Star Trek (2009): Budget $150 million, Domestic Gross $257,730,019, Foreign Gross $127,950,427, Worldwide Gross $385,680,446

Star Trek Into Darkness: Budget $190 million, Domestic Gross $228,778,661, Foreign Gross $238,602,923, Worldwide Gross $467,381,584

I wish we had a slightly hard sci-fi Trek movie, and a diplomacy Trek movie and a new bizarre species Trek movie, and a pre-warp society Trek movie. The older movies went in this direction a bit, especially IV.

There are countless box office juggernauts, and even minor hits, that have done what Trek movies could be doing: Close Encounters, E. T., The Abyss, Contact, Master and Commander, and the above three very recent hits. There's no need for Trek movies to do superhero style stories.

But even with superhero movies, in 1978 the tagline for Superman was "You will believe a man can fly." Is there that much awe at all in movies anymore?

 

[uniderth]

I agree. I really enjoyed Gravity, Interstellar, and I expect I will enjoy The Martian. Star Trek has the potential to tell some amazing stories. The problem seems to be that nobody has been brave enough to do it yet. It seems most Trek movies are more comfortable with cliches.

The problem though with doing a NASAesque Hard scifi is that when your in a gigantic cushy star ship, it's harder to depict the perils of space. The man in a tin can is part of what helps make Gravity and Interstellar. There are a few sheets of tin foil between you and the vast black empty void. It makes you feel small and lost at sea. I large star ship can't quite convey that same feeling.

 

[Kor]

No matter how good it is, if it has "Star Trek" in the name, then I dare say that most audiences won't flock to it quite the way they did to "Interstellar" and "The Martian."

The films mentioned above had a more mainstream appeal with stories tied much closer to the real world, as well as the big name draw that even the new Trek movies didn't quite have.

Interstellar: Christopher Nolan, Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine.

The Martian: Ridley Scott, Matt Damon.

Gravity: George Clooney, Sandra Bullock.

That's kind of a big deal.

In addition, those movies weren't associated with decades of baggage from an existing franchise that ended up being overshadowed by certain other franchises quite a while ago.

Kor

 

[uniderth]

Well they could always drop Star Trek from the title and trick audiences into going and seeing it.

I'm looking at you Prometheus.

 

[Melakon]

Well they could always drop Star Trek from the title and trick audiences

Paramount tried that with Enterprise and it still didn't work.

 

[Kor]

"Enterprise" didn't go far enough. It stuck too closely to a formula that was getting stale. And TV is a different matter.

For an intelligent blockbuster feature film, we would need something that takes place a mere thirty years or so from now with only a tangential, almost non-existent connection to Trek (and basically ignoring most existing "cannnnon" regarding the time in which it takes place); with technical consulting by NASA, starring Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Amy Adams, Leonardo DiCaprio, Morgan Freeman, Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Gary Oldman, Jack Nicholson, Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard and Anthony Hopkins, and directed by Steven Spielberg.

Kor

 

[uniderth]

"Enterprise" didn't go far enough. It stuck too closely to a formula that was getting stale. And TV is a different matter.

For an intelligent blockbuster feature film, we would need something that takes place a mere thirty years or so from now with only a tangential, almost non-existent connection to Trek (and basically ignoring most existing "cannnnon" regarding the time in which it takes place); with technical consulting by NASA, starring Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Amy Adams, Leonardo DiCaprio, Morgan Freeman, Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Gary Oldman, Jack Nicholson, Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard and Anthony Hopkins, and directed by Steven Spielberg.

Kor

You could save money on script writing if you let Michael bay direct. But then your special effects budget would go through the roof. And you'd have to include Megan Fox in the cast(which I probably wouldn't complain about).

Eh, who am I kidding, I just described the JJ Abrams movies.

P.S. I see you're adding more n's to the word cannnnon.

 

[T'Girl]

iven a choice between a generic "sci-fi epic" that click all the points on the block buster checklist, and a smaller Star Trek movie that is more in-universe than just having a Star Trek title, I'll take the in-universe movie.

 

[MacLeod]

The question is, is the audiance there? To get the numbers they are doing now they basically had to reset the ST universe. It's a lot easier to get into a movie if you don't need to know any backstory, that was part of the issue with the first Ten ST films, they built on what had come before. Films like The Martian and Gravity are stand alone you don't need to have any prior knowledge. A Film like Prometheus is more of a prequel again it doesn't matter if you haven't seen the other Alien movies as it takes place before them.

Now as to the style Hollywood tends to play it safe, sure superhero movies are in vogue right now so it's not surprising that studios will put out movies in that style until the next thing comes around in which it'll be everyone doing that style (more or less).

Master and Commander whilst being a very good film didn't exactly set the box office on fire, if it had I suspect we would have gotten a sequel. It doesn't matter how good your story is, how complex and engaging your characters are if you can't get the bums on the seats to turn a profit. That's not to say a ST film based around social comentary can't work it did i.e TVH, but that was also a fish out of water film.

 

[Warped9]

What I get from the the OP is that Trek has become basically a comic book on film. And, yeah, I despair over that as well.

Citing films like Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian and Master And Commander telegraphs, to me, a sense of ambition for something more than a comic book.

And I, for one, would welcome that. It's that kind of ambition that made TOS aim for something more than what general passed for sci-fi back in the day. And even if TMP isn't one's cup-of-tea it, too, aimed for something more than the pew-pew of Star Wars.

Aiming for something better and distinct from what everyone else is doing has definitely gone missing from the Trek franchise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What I get from the the OP is that Trek has become basically a comic book on film. And, yeah, I despair over that as well.

Citing films like Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian and Master And Commander telegraphs, to me, a sense of ambition for something more than a comic book.

And I, for one, would welcome that. It's that kind of ambition that made TOS aim for something more than what general passed for sci-fi back in the day. And even if TMP isn't one's cup-of-tea it, too, aimed for something more than the pew-pew of Star Wars.

Aiming for something better and distinct from what everyone else is doing has definitely gone missing from the Trek franchise.

Trouble is, with the possible exception of Master and Commander, they don't really translate well to Star Trek on the big screen. They might ( and probably have) make good episodes of a TV series. Though with out the level SFX available to big budget movies. For a film I don't think the sort of single character focus of the other films work for Star Trek on the big screen.

But if the question is can Star Trek make films, that from a writing, acting and production standpoint, equal those films, then the answer is sure, why not?

 

[Warped9]

Because something hasn't been done doesn't prove it cannot be done. No one is saying that action and adventure should be eliminated, but better writing and acting can always be welcome.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Because something hasn't been done doesn't prove it cannot be done. No one is saying that action and adventure should be eliminated, but better writing and acting can always be welcome.

Is this a response to my post?

 

[Warped9]

As far as feature films go the last two movies have cemented this idea of Trek needing to be this huge hyper action packed blow up with some big baddie to fight and defeat. It has become a comic book on film pandering to every cliche ever played on in regard to Trek.

It would take a helluva creative team with balls to break away from that, and that's assuming the studio would even let them do it. But it would be nice if Trek could have an equivalent to The Dark Knight (at least) in terms of genre.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

What I get from the the OP is that Trek has become basically a comic book on film. And, yeah, I despair over that as well.

You say that like it hasn't been the case since forever.

For pete's sake the pilot the studio actually went with has a character getting psychic powers from a freaky energy field in space, the first episode to air featured shape shifting alien space vampire, not to mention all the godlike aliens, space monsters, doomsday weapons, and at least one or two supervillains (one being the afore mentioned guy with psychic powers).

TOS has always been a little comic booky.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As far as feature films go the last two movies have cemented this idea of Trek needing to be this huge hyper action packed blow up with some big baddie to fight and defeat. It has become a comic book on film pandering to every cliche ever played on in regard to Trek.

It would take a helluva creative team with balls to break away from that, and that's assuming the studio would even let them do it. But it would be nice if Trek could have an equivalent to The Dark Knight (at least) in terms of genre.

That was cemented by TWOK.

 

[Trekkin]

I always saw TOS as 'pulp' science fiction. Which isn't exactly a slam against it, because quiet a lot of science fiction originated there. The DS9 versions of Ellison, Campbell etc actually talk about that in 'Far Beyond the Stars.' Some ridiculousness doesn't necessarily make a story ridiculous.

It's like Forbidden Planet. Sure there's some meat to chew on there...but there's also ancient alien machines that make a scientist semi-godlike and blows up his ID into a literal raging monster.

Actually, that makes Forbidden Planet sound like an influence for The Incredible Hulk. Figures.

 

[Drone]

"Enterprise" didn't go far enough. It stuck too closely to a formula that was getting stale. And TV is a different matter.

For an intelligent blockbuster feature film, we would need something that takes place a mere thirty years or so from now with only a tangential, almost non-existent connection to Trek (and basically ignoring most existing "cannnnon" regarding the time in which it takes place); with technical consulting by NASA, starring Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Amy Adams, Leonardo DiCaprio, Morgan Freeman, Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Gary Oldman, Jack Nicholson, Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard and Anthony Hopkins, and directed by Steven Spielberg.

Kor

That cast seems a little light to me. Do you suppose you could squeeze in a just a few more recognizable names?

 

[xortex]

It's got to have a story within a story and turned on it's head with say Spock being the only real character on trial for being a double agent during the Romulan wars. You could even include the Spock from the movies who I liked. We also know Vulcans can lie. They can fool Federation computers. He can be given a new real crew. and they could search for the Valient which Kirk was the Captain of and the Talosians (future Humans) were in charge of. The possibilities of knowing what's real and what isn't is endless. Their mission could be the search for Decker with the help of Ambassador Pike who is an illusion. Yes it gets magical but advanced technology is magical.

 

[martok2112]

Emotionally charged stories are great for one-off movies like The Martian, Interstellar, and Gravity. Which are all the same tale over and over again... one person trapped/lost in space with a lot of perils to overcome.

I highly doubt that folk are going to want to see the same type of tale three Trek films in a row. Once is fine. Otherwise, in order for Trek to continue to be a blockbuster, it's going to have to rely on the heavy action, quick banter, and fast paced storytelling that has been set ever since Abrams took the reigns.

And the tone that Abrams set is fine by me.