"Star Trek Begins" - The 'Origins' Film Discussion

[The + Kid]

Actually, there are several unused ST4 scripts. Take a page from the development of TWOK and take the best of each script and make a movie out of them. Maybe even a two-part movie.

The big holdup has been cash, which no longer seems to be problem with Paramount’s merger with Skydance. As retaining the Kelvin cast for one more movie is expensive.

Yes. And the issue with cash goes to the justification of putting it on tv or putting it in a theater. Would any of those unused scripts translate to a successful movie, or could you just put them on Paramount+ as a 2-part episode or as a Paramount+ standalone movie and get pretty much the same result.

Obviously with something like the Section 31 project they're just going to put it on Paramount+.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, but often you see suggestions of just doing a Star Trek movie with a lower budget. I don't really see the point of doing something like that. Because the chances of a lower budget movie giving you a great return isn't that high. You won't lose much money, but the chances of you making a lot aren't that great. It rarely happens.

So an idea for a lower budget Star Trek movie would probably best be served on TV. Because it would probably amount to a glorified 2 or 3-part television episode anyway, and you would be putting it in the theater just for the sake of doing it. And of course that's probably why we haven't gotten anything in almost 10 years.

They've had ideas, but none of those ideas were something that they felt comfortable putting money behind and putting in the theater.

A sequel in the Kelvin timeline also grants you that freedom. As do standalone movies.

Yes. And apparently they are doing another movie with the Chris Pine crew. Or so they say. Hopefully they mean it this time. Hopefully they have an idea that they feel will work in the theater.

One thing with doing this origin movie (if it happens), is maybe they can put something in it that they can use in this possible final Chris Pine crew movie. Or maybe use in a movie that comes after the Chris Pine crew is done.

 

[Commander Troi]

It sounds like a reboot/reimagining of First Contact.

 

[fireproof78]

It sounds like a reboot/reimagining of First Contact.

Honestly, if I were in charge the franchise this would be my take as well. To set up the Star Trek universe and make it a completely divergent timeline from our history. Set it up like "For All Mankind" and then unpack it from there.

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, I don't think there's going to be any rules to this.

No, obviously whatever story they come up with that happened prior to 2233 is how everything will have happened.

You mean, whatever story they come up with will contradict what came before.

Also, I saw that you mentioned logic. This is Star Trek. It's not hard science fiction. It's space fantasy or space opera, take your pick. So logic doesn't really factor into much, I don't think. They have warp drives that are enabled by make-believe crystals, and they have talking humanoid aliens. Applying logic to Star Trek is somewhat illogical, is it not.

You just kind of go with it, because if you analyze it too much it all falls apart.

Trek doesn't need to be hard sci-fi. It just needs to be believable and have a good story and good characters. Yes, there's no question that much of it falls apart when viewed too closely. But every television show is like that.

An origin movie set in the Kelvin timeline obviously gives you free rein to do whatever you want. It's an alternate reality. And there's no rule that states that it's an exact copy of the prime timeline until 2233, is there? Likewise, there's no real scientific rules for alternate realities is there? So there you go.

That was mentioned before. And my response to that was, yes, it's all fake, so they can make up whatever they want. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies with the idea that the KT has a different past than the PT, based on what we know so far.

But yeah, I would guess that this movie would be a full-on reboot of Star Trek. It seems like kind of a weird thing to do, but who knows. And reboots sometimes work. Mission: Impossible comes to mind. It was a television series that ran for seven years and I guess did okay. And now it's a movie franchise that does okay too.

We've been so jaded for years about movies happening and then not happening, that I'm still dubious this is even going to get made. But if it does, I'm willing to see what they have in store, even if it is yet another reboot.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Yes. And the issue with cash goes to the justification of putting it on tv or putting it in a theater. Would any of those unused scripts translate to a successful movie, or could you just put them on Paramount+ as a 2-part episode or as a Paramount+ standalone movie and get pretty much the same result.

Limiting spending means bottle episodes. Perhaps the scripts written for ST4 do not permit that at all. It’s go big or go home.

Obviously with something like the Section 31 project they're just going to put it on Paramount+.

Section 31 was originally mean to be a series on P+. That it's a tv movie is Paramount recouping their investment in the idea.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, but often you see suggestions of just doing a Star Trek movie with a lower budget. I don't really see the point of doing something like that. Because the chances of a lower budget movie giving you a great return isn't that high. You won't lose much money, but the chances of you making a lot aren't that great. It rarely happens.

But that's the point. To not lose much, if any, money.

So an idea for a lower budget Star Trek movie would probably best be served on TV. Because it would probably amount to a glorified 2 or 3-part television episode anyway, and you would be putting it in the theater just for the sake of doing it. And of course that's probably why we haven't gotten anything in almost 10 years.

They've had ideas, but none of those ideas were something that they felt comfortable putting money behind and putting in the theater.

Just becuase Paramount doesn't put money behind ceratain ideas doesn't mean that they are bad.

Some scripts are rejected just because they are too Star Trek for a general audience.

 

[Frontis]

Isn't "Star Trek begins" at least partial about what happens in the Enterprise series?
Because it's actually about what happened before the Pike and Kirk area...

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, but ENT didn't get a chance to finish the story (in fact, it spent most of its existence faffing about before finally starting to do something with it at the last minute) so it's still wide open for someone else to take a crack at it.

 

[fireproof78]

Hopefully better this time.

 

[Frontis]

Well, the film can be very different than the series. We will see...

 

[mattman8907]

I remember they wanted the first season or at least part of it based on Earth. So maybe they'll take that plot point and run with it in some way shape or form. I just hope the movie bring in legacy characters Like Zefram Cochrane, Emory Erickson and Henry Archer. people that were instrumental in making Starfleet possible with their engines and transporter.

 

[Dukhat]

I highly doubt that the new movie will have any of that.

 

[The Wormhole]

Maybe Zephram Cochrane could be seen or at least mentioned, but I wouldn't bet the farm on that. I will bet the farm on not seeing or hearing about Emory Erickson or Henry Archer at all.

 

[Dukhat]

Expect the exact same type of content we had from the last three Kelvin films. Lots of action and very little plot, with a villain with the flimsiest of motives. That’s not a put-down, as I liked those movies. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking it’s going to be anything more than that. Henry Archer and Emory Erickson aren’t going to put lots of casual moviegoers’ asses in theater seats.

 

[fireproof78]

Boy, all the depth and emotion I draw from these films must be entirely fake then.

 

[Dukhat]

Boy, all the depth and emotion I draw from these films must be entirely fake then.

You know, one of these days you really need to stop making everything about you.

 

[HotRod]

Boy, all the depth and emotion I draw from these films must be entirely fake then.

The films had plenty of depth and emotion. They just didn't beat us over the head with little Trek factoids every 10 seconds that only a small percentage of the audience would get.

 

[The + Kid]

It's curious that this wasn't brought up before, although I guess it was kind of a given, but from The Hollywood Reporter last week...

Star Trek: A crown jewel of the Paramount empire, it’s a 60-year-old franchise with near-universal name recognition. Yet the TV show turned film series has never been a major box office draw. Skydance has been involved with Star Trek since Star Trek Into Darkness, the Chris Pine-led 2013 film that stands as the franchise’s highest grossing entry with $467.3 million. After follow-up Star Trek Beyond (2016) tapped out at a disappointing $385.6 million globally, Paramount has tried and failed to articulate a big-screen future for Trek — announcing several Pine-led sequels that have yet to materialize and even hiring Quentin Tarantino to develop an R-rated Trek that went nowhere after the filmmaker bowed out.

Paramount has two Trek films in development. One is prequel focusing on humanity’s early contact with aliens and the formation of the Federation. Andor director Toby Haynes is attached to direct a script by Seth Grahame-Smith that is rumored to take place largely on Earth. The studio sees the project as an entry point for new fans who do not need to know about decades of canon (or keep up with the myriad shows on Paramount+). No cast or release date is set, but it’s in pole position to be the next Trek to hit the big screen.

The other film would star Pine and his crew, including Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldaña, and while it’s said that the cast is game to come back, an announcement in 2016 ultimately went nowhere due to salary disputes, while a 2022 announcement caught its stars by surprise. That iteration eventually lost director Matt Shakman to Marvel’s Fantastic Four. Still, Paramount has hired The Flight Attendant creator Steve Yockey to take the latest stab at a script billed as the final voyage for Pine’s crew.

That's a good way of going about things. Create a fresh and new starting point.

I'd be fine with them starting a third timeline if it'll make Star Trek bigger. It can't hurt. Doing more of the same will more than likely get the same or similar results. So if you want different results then one way of doing that is trying something different.

Let's see what they do. Of course, it's highly unlikely they'll start a third timeline, but just as idea... If you want Star Trek to be a major box office draw, more of the same may not be the answer.

 

[SCE2Aux]

A Star Trek movie set mostly on Earth, dealing with the early Federation and not weighed down by the lore of other shows?

Don't threaten me with a good time!

 

[mattman8907]

A Star Trek movie set mostly on Earth, dealing with the early Federation and not weighed down by the lore of other shows?

Don't threaten me with a good time!

How does that work? If it set on Earth and dealing with the early federation?

 

[fireproof78]

How does that work? If it set on Earth and dealing with the early federation?

You actually get to learn about the delegates, what their reasons are for joining in the coalition of planets, improving relationships between them, and possibly what they might like about Earth.

Lots of potential for drama.