Should ViacomCBS give up on a fourth movie and stick with Star Trek Television?

[FederationHistorian]

Although the look is slightly different, IMO the Kelvin movies and Discovery reimagined things about the same amount. In Alex Kurtzman's own words, "Discovery brings the look and feel of our Star Trek movies to television"

No one disliked the Kelvin Klingons though. They were probably among the best parts of Into Darkness.

And the Federation tech being updated in the Kelvin movies made sense, since the timeline was altered. The worst offender was transwarp beaming from planet to planet, which removed the need for starships altogether. But at least that’s covered by the fact that it was improved upon by Khan himself, who is as super smart as he is super strong, and when he was working for Section 31.

Whereas with DIS there is no reason to think that the timeline has been altered; ENT, no matter how people feel about the series, is canon and managed to fit into established canon quite well from the Borg to Klingons to the Augments. And while holographic communication and touchscreen panels use in DIS can be excused somewhat – since the real world 21st century is more advanced than what’s been depicted in Star Trek, at least so far – the existence of the spore drive doesn’t make sense. In that its hard to believe that no individual or pairing would come up with a new version of the concept on their own, either within the Federation or without, and would not come to the exact same conclusions that Stamets had of biology and physics being the same at the quantum level. Resulting in a spore drive that’s friendly to non human use.

 

[fireproof78]

No one disliked the Kelvin Klingons though.

Haha...oh, wait, you're serious?

is canon and managed to fit into established canon quite well from the Borg to Klingons to the Augments.

Well, that's an opinion. I don't agree with it but fair enough. I thought the inclusion of these elments made Enterprise feel very out of place.

the existence of the spore drive doesn’t make sense.

Well, we were bound to agree on something.

 

[F. King Daniel]

No one disliked the Kelvin Klingons though. They were probably among the best parts of Into Darkness.

Were you under a rock in 2013? We had people saying they were "Blingons" because of the piercings up the ridge, that Klingons shouldn't have bright blue eyes etc.

And the Federation tech being updated in the Kelvin movies made sense, since the timeline was altered. The worst offender was transwarp beaming from planet to planet, which removed the need for starships altogether. But at least that’s covered by the fact that it was improved upon by Khan himself, who is as super smart as he is super strong, and when he was working for Section 31.

What about Next Gen's "subspace beaming" that did the same thing? Regardless, it was a Scotty prime-universe formula, presumably perfected after his "Relics" resurrection and introduced into the past by Spock Prime. So it has a legitimate storyline reason for being there.

Whereas with DIS there is no reason to think that the timeline has been altered; ENT, no matter how people feel about the series, is canon and managed to fit into established canon quite well from the Borg to Klingons to the Augments.

There are STILL people on this site furious that the Ferengi and Borg were used in ENT, that Romulans had working cloaking devices a century before it was amazing and new in TOS.

And while holographic communication and touchscreen panels use in DIS can be excused somewhat – since the real world 21st century is more advanced than what’s been depicted in Star Trek, at least so far – the existence of the spore drive doesn’t make sense. In that its hard to believe that no individual or pairing would come up with a new version of the concept on their own, either within the Federation or without, and would not come to the exact same conclusions that Stamets had of biology and physics being the same at the quantum level. Resulting in a spore drive that’s friendly to non human use.

Unless the Borg assimilated space tardigrades they'd never know about it. While it does make Voyager somewhat ludicrous since they tried every drive system they could imagine - including the Infinity Transwarp Salamander Drive. But the only time a drive using aliens was even broached ("Equinox") it was shot down by Janeway as immoral. And Ripper was clearly suffering in Discovery until Staments broke laws dating back to 1996 in order to make himself a pilot.

So it's a mess, but a close look pretty much shows everything before to be a bit of a mess too.

 

[Ovation]

Into Darkness left a bad taste in everyone mouth.

Everyone? Really? Wow. Now I finally seen the light. I’ll be sure to no longer consider it my favourite of 13 films. Hmmm. Learn something new every day, I guess. So, everyone?

 

[M'Sharak]

Into Darkness left a bad taste in everyone mouth.

No one disliked the Kelvin Klingons though.

You may in the future wish to consider steering clear of making sweeping assertions such as these. For one thing, they're not especially accurate, which can be kind of a stumbling block if you're wanting people to accept your other statements as true.

 

[FederationHistorian]

You may in the future wish to consider steering clear of making sweeping assertions such as these. For one thing, they're not especially accurate, which can be kind of a stumbling block if you're wanting people to accept your other statements as true.

If Beyond did not sell as well as Into Darkness, there has to be a reason. It was a good enough film, and the majority of those that saw Into Darkness were probably turned off of seeing the following film. Since Into Darkness was benefiting from positive reviews of ST’09.

And reception has always been positive for the Kelvin Klingons; that’s what I’ve always read and heard. I don’t see how that’s “living under a rock” because I don’t seek out to be surrounded by negativity.

I’m not seeking popular approval here. Just offering my input.

 

[DarKush]

Considering that there was in fact a USS Discovery mentioned in TNG, that would have made sense.



I don’t think anyone wanted the 23rd century to be reimagined though, at least the way DIS did it. Considering that that was what the Kelvin series was supposed to do. Update the special effects yes, but DIS went too far.

And if Tarantino’s plot is a remake of “A Piece Of The Action”, then I don’t imagine that much time will be spent on starships at all.

Elaborating on the Lost Era DISCO more, while we would miss out on Pike, Number One (maybe?), and Young Spock, we could've gotten instead Captain Harriman, Demora Sulu, and the Enterprise-B or Captain Garrett and the Enterprise-C for Season 2. We could've also gotten Young Picard and the Stargazer. They could've recast Sarek, Spock, and Amanda still, or brought Saavik into the mix. Further, a Lost Era DISCO would've allowed them to bring in actual TOS actors. Beyond that, the best way to go IMO would've been setting DISCO in the 25th century, where it's free and clear to not be weighted down as much by canon. DISCO's last two seasons have just felt more open ended and like they can breathe more and we could've had that for the whole run.

When it comes to Strange New Worlds, I think the reason that series got greenlit was due to the popularity of Pike (in particular) in DISCO Season 2. From what we've seen/heard so far its supposed to be more episodic like other Treks, it's bringing back other iconic characters, while also doing its own tweaks. The 23rd century reimagining isn't as divergent as DISCO's, and therefore I don't think it's triggering the same way. Perhaps the detractors are giving up because Strange New Worlds is the closest they'll get to emulating the TOS look, while others might be pleased that the series has more 'traditional' looking leads, among many other things. That could speak to some detractors being flexible and accepting of some reimagining and tweaking to make Strange New Worlds, if not DISCO as well, viable as 21st century entertainment. We don't know yet how much Strange New Worlds will reimagine or tweak things, but going off Pike's introduction in DISCO Season 2 we are already seeing a return to a more TOS look and feel (even with the Klingons), so I imagine we'll get more of the same.

Personally I love a lot of the DISCO costume designs and even redesigns. I just don't think they fit well sandwiched between ENT and TOS (but as mentioned, the DISCO uniforms do look inspired by ENT so there's that). If you plopped DISCO in the Lost Era or definitely in the 25th century I think that's one less thing that would've triggered me I can say.

 

[C.E. Evans]

While I wouldn't mind a fourth Kelvin Timeline movie, I wouldn't mind if TPTB decide to do something different either. As with the case with the original four TOS movies (1979-1986), the Kelvin movies filled a hole when there wasn't any new Trek on TV. With the abundance of new Trek shows on Paramount+, a case could indeed be made that the need for new Trek movies isn't necessary--but new Marvel TV shows on Disney+ isn't stopping the production of new Marvel movies.

Personally, I think the key to any new Trek movie is to make it a special EVENT--something you won't see anywhere else. It could be a particular cast (Kelvin or otherwise), an era that Paramount+ hasn't explored yet, or something so game-changing that it makes everyone take notice.

The alternative though could be to do the exact opposite of the above, and forget about making blockbusters altogether and make future Trek movies essentially two-hour TV movies that could be produced on modest theatrical budgets and with equally modest marketing. Such movies might have to rely less on spectacle, extensive location shooting, and feature smaller casts, IMO. Such movies might also have to adopt a dual release model of a limited theatrical run and streaming on Paramount+ possibly.

 

[Ovation]

If Beyond did not sell as well as Into Darkness, there has to be a reason.

Plenty of reasons. Too long a gap since the previous film. Poor marketing strategy. Less well received by critics than its predecessors (of little importance to long time fans but of some influence on the more casual viewers of Trek films). Resistance from fan base to a “Trek and the Furious” movie because of the director. Toxic gatekeeping by self appointed “Trufans” (patent pending) on various social media platforms and YouTube channels. And more.

Any one of the above is debatable but none are any less likely than a singular dismissal of Into Darkness as a “bad movie the everyone hated” (and most are far more persuasive than the “bad movie” argument). Logically, it was a combination of most of the above along with other factors not listed.

It was a good enough film, and the majority of those that saw Into Darkness were probably turned off of seeing the following film.

You have no way of establishing this assertion beyond your personal antipathy to Into Darkness. You’re quite entitled to your negative views on that film—your views do not speak for others (even if some people share them).

As for Beyond being a “good enough film”, I agree. But I found Into Darkness far superior. As did others (though I don’t presume to speak for them regarding their views on other Trek films).

Since Into Darkness was benefiting from positive reviews of ST’09.

If this is true, then given the highly favourable reviews of Into Darkness (more than Beyond received), then this assertion directly contradicts your earlier assertion that people were turned off by Into Darkness. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis makes for a less persuasive argument.

 

[Dukhat]

Considering that there was in fact a USS Discovery mentioned in TNG, that would have made sense.

It wasn't mentioned. The ship's name and registry number were seen in a blink-and-you'll miss-it computer screen along with such ships as the USS Elmer Fudd, USS Minnow and USS Heart of Gold. These were all just in-jokes and the veracity of these names are questionable at best.

 

[fireproof78]

And reception has always been positive for the Kelvin Klingons; that’s what I’ve always read and heard. I don’t see how that’s “living under a rock” because I don’t seek out to be surrounded by negativity.

Doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Plenty of reasons. Too long a gap since the previous film. Poor marketing strategy. Less well received by critics than its predecessors (of little importance to long time fans but of some influence on the more casual viewers of Trek films). Resistance from fan base to a “Trek and the Furious” movie because of the director. Toxic gatekeeping by self appointed “Trufans” (patent pending) on various social media platforms and YouTube channels. And more.


Any one of the above is debatable but none are any less likely than a singular dismissal of Into Darkness as a “bad movie the everyone hated” (and most are far more persuasive than the “bad movie” argument). Logically, it was a combination of most of the above along with other factors not listed.

The gap between ST’09 and STID was 4 years, while the gap between STID and BEY was 3 years.

STID and BEY got the same amount of marketing.

So what if critics didn’t like BEY? Critics loved DIS S1. The majority of fans strongly disliked that season. The tastes of critics and fans have been diverging for some time now. But even DIS S1 can be respected by fans for trying to take risks. I don’t see your point here.

Its not like BEY would have been more actiony and over the top than a Fast and Furious film.

And “trufans” will always be with us, and have been since TNG first aired. Its a poor excuse to use.

You have no way of establishing this assertion beyond your personal antipathy to Into Darkness. You’re quite entitled to your negative views on that film—your views do not speak for others (even if some people share them).

Yes, such antipathy. Even though,
1) I am open to bringing back Carol Marcus and Khan back to the next/a future Kelvin film, provided that the right script is in place.
2) I liked the first half of STID. And,
3) I’ve recently starting looking at STID in a new light. So, dislike regarding STID is starting to fade away.

If this is true, then given the highly favourable reviews of Into Darkness (more than Beyond received), then this assertion directly contradicts your earlier assertion that people were turned off by Into Darkness. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis makes for a less persuasive argument.

Like I said earlier, the tastes of critics and fans have been diverging.

 

[Ovation]

The gap between ST’09 and STID was 4 years, while the gap between STID and BEY was 3 years.

The complaint was voiced in each case.

STID and BEY got the same amount of marketing.

Amount =/= quality.

So what if critics didn’t like BEY? Critics loved DIS S1. The majority of fans strongly disliked that season. The tastes of critics and fans have been diverging for some time now. But even DIS S1 can be respected by fans for trying to take risks. I don’t see your point here.

Critical response has been endlessly bandied about in support of varying arguments for and against these films. It’s one of many factors at play.

Also, you argued Into Darkness benefited from positive reviews for the previous film. If it applies in that case, it applies to the very positive reviews of Into Darkness as well. You can’t logically argue that two sets of positive reviews have opposite effects on subsequent film attendance.

Its not like BEY would have been more actiony and over the top than a Fast and Furious film.

Fear of just that kind of “action over substance” was quite persistent in the run up to the film, especially after the first trailer was released.

And “trufans” will always be with us, and have been since TNG first aired. Its a poor excuse to use.

The Internet has magnified the voice of Trufans a thousand fold.

Yes, such antipathy

You called it a movie that “left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.”

Like I said earlier, the tastes of critics and fans have been diverging.

And? Fans of a franchise are rarely swayed by film critics but casual moviegoers (the ones needed to expand a franchise’s appeal) are more likely to be influenced.

In general, however, you failed to grasp my point. I didn’t present any one of the reasons as definitive (exceedingly few things have a singular cause). I rebutted your unsupported singular assertion with a set of possible alternatives while pointing out that multiple factors were at play simultaneously (and noting my list was incomplete). That you disagree with the alternatives presented doesn’t alter the fact they existed. My point was not to say any of them were especially correct—it was to point out they were there.

 

[DarKush]

While I wouldn't mind a fourth Kelvin Timeline movie, I wouldn't mind if TPTB decide to do something different either. As with the case with the original four TOS movies (1979-1986), the Kelvin movies filled a hole when there wasn't any new Trek on TV. With the abundance of new Trek shows on Paramount+, a case could indeed be made that the need for new Trek movies isn't necessary--but new Marvel TV shows on Disney+ isn't stopping the production of new Marvel movies.

Personally, I think the key to any new Trek movie is to make it a special EVENT--something you won't see anywhere else. It could be a particular cast (Kelvin or otherwise), an era that Paramount+ hasn't explored yet, or something so game-changing that it makes everyone take notice.

The alternative though could be to do the exact opposite of the above, and forget about making blockbusters altogether and make future Trek movies essentially two-hour TV movies that could be produced on modest theatrical budgets and with equally modest marketing. Such movies might have to rely less on spectacle, extensive location shooting, and feature smaller casts, IMO. Such movies might also have to adopt a dual release model of a limited theatrical run and streaming on Paramount+ possibly.

I agree with much of what you're saying, though I do think there's a difference between what Disney Plus and the MCU is doing versus Paramount attempting another Kelvin movie or even attempting to emulate Disney. It would almost be the reverse.

The Disney Plus series are providing connections between the films, introducing new characters/storylines, while also giving some overlooked or underused characters a spotlight. Paramount could do the same with the Trek (and already was ahead of Disney when it comes to the TNG movies and DS9/VOY, and to a lesser extent ENT and Nemesis), but the big difference to me is the massive success of the MCU movies and how that's driving a thirst for more content. Unfortunately, the Kelvin films ended on a whimper, and while Trek is expanding again on the small screen, and Kurtzman Trek is seemingly a success, I don't feel it's the kind of success that the MCU has, or perhaps even the rabid fandom that made the Snyder Cut happen.

There's nothing wrong with Paramount trying to get there, but I don't think DISCO, PIC, Lower Decks, or Prodigy are even on the mass audience level of popularity of TNG when it jumped to movies, so I don't know don't how well a theatrical release of a film connected to them will go. It could be a debacle like the Firefly movie Serenity, where the studio mistook internet love for mass audience acceptance.

I don't know how much general/mass thirst there is for Trek, especially compared to the MCU, or that the streaming series can generate enough of it to warrant movie spin offs. That said, the idea of a cheaper films (the old model for TOS and TNG movies) I think would be more the way to go, but then again, none of the new Treks are as popular as TOS or TNG. I wonder if the hard numbers would have them getting the viewership of DS9, VOY, or ENT even. And if it's as I suspect, I would rather they do event streaming films like HBO Max is doing with Batgirl. Do a crossover event like the Arrowverse instead of trying to compete against Star Wars, Avatar, the MCU, and DC.

I thought the Short Treks were an innovative way to explore some unexplored or little explored corners of the Trek franchise and I wouldn't mind seeing more of those, or even movies along that line that are exclusive to Paramount Plus.

 

[FederationHistorian]

You called it a movie that “left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.”

If you are going to just cherry pick my response, then there’s no point in having a debate.

And? Fans of a franchise are rarely swayed by film critics but casual moviegoers (the ones needed to expand a franchise’s appeal) are more likely to be influenced.

In general, however, you failed to grasp my point. I didn’t present any one of the reasons as definitive (exceedingly few things have a singular cause). I rebutted your unsupported singular assertion with a set of possible alternatives while pointing out that multiple factors were at play simultaneously (and noting my list was incomplete). That you disagree with the alternatives presented doesn’t alter the fact they existed. My point was not to say any of them were especially correct—it was to point out they were there.

And all those factors were in play for STID as well; just replace The Fast and The Furious with Star Wars. And while it was a box office success, its success did not carry over to the next film. The most obvious reason is that most of the audience that watched it did not like the film and made it apparent by not showing up to BEY. Basically the audience voiced disapproval of the direction of the franchise through their wallets.

 

[Kor]

To me, Into Darkness was a rip-roaring roller coaster ride, despite it's many faults.
Beyond was kind of "meh." I re-watch I.D. much more than BEY.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

I don't feel it's the kind of success that the MCU has, or perhaps even the rabid fandom that made the Snyder Cut happen.

There's nothing wrong with Paramount trying to get there, but I don't think DISCO, PIC, Lower Decks, or Prodigy are even on the mass audience level of popularity of TNG when it jumped to movies, so I don't know don't how well a theatrical release of a film connected to them will go. It could be a debacle like the Firefly movie Serenity, where the studio mistook internet love for mass audience acceptance.

And they never will. The MCU is a once in a life time achievement that Trek would be best served to regard with skepticism.

 

[M'Sharak]

If Beyond did not sell as well as Into Darkness, there has to be a reason. It was a good enough film, and the majority of those that saw Into Darkness were probably turned off of seeing the following film. Since Into Darkness was benefiting from positive reviews of ST’09.

Perhaps there is a reason (or reasons). However, none of your hypotheticals are necessarily that reason, nor do any of them lead logically and irrefutably to the assertion you made. They are speculation, at best, and failed to support that conclusion.

And reception has always been positive for the Kelvin Klingons; that’s what I’ve always read and heard.

I'd suggest going back in this forum to read reactions by some at the time Into Darkness was in the theaters. Personally, I thought the Klingons looked great and played on-screen like proper Klingons, but you may discover that that impression was far from a universally-held one.

Just bear in mind that, as soon as humans become involved in any discussion, there will rarely be one single indisputable correct answer. There will undoubtedly be many opinions, not all of which will necessarily be compatible with any of the others. (This is especially true when the topic of discussion is Star Trek, so be wary of stating a thing as fact unless you have iron-clad reasoning to back it up.)

 

[fireproof78]

Fear of just that kind of “action over substance” was quite persistent in the run up to the film, especially after the first trailer was released.

Indeed. The marketing was already considered lackluster for the film, and the initial trailer was panned wildly as being too much like Fast and Furious and not proper Star Trek. Add in the new director's past films and the opinion was weighted heavily against the film.

 

[Kor]

And then there was that online trailer that spoiled the whole surprise plot twist of Krall's backstory/identity.
That was exactly the kind of thing I didn't want to know before watching the movie!

Kor