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

[Daedalus]

Except it’s not a generalization, it’s a fact. Nobody wanted any of the 10-11 shows that spun off from TOS. It’s not a measure of how good or bad they are. It’s simply that the producers of those shows did not ask the general public if their show idea was something anyone wanted before they decided to produce it.

Agree to disagree.

There's always somebody who wants a spinoff, be it imaginary or proposed. In the 80s, somebody imagined a new crew on a new Enterprise, and were no doubt disappointed by TNG. It's the nature of the beast.

Of those 10-11 spinoffs, I can guarantee I wanted one of them, at least.

 

[Dukhat]

Agree to disagree.

There's always somebody who wants a spinoff, be it imaginary or proposed. In the 80s, somebody imagined a new crew on a new Enterprise, and were no doubt disappointed by TNG. It's the nature of the beast.

Of those 10-11 spinoffs, I can guarantee I wanted one of them, at least.

I’m still waiting for the show that I want. TPTB have yet to ask me for my opinion about it. And even if they wanted my opinion, I have no faith that they would produce it exactly the way I wanted it.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I think there's two different ways to want a show or movie: people can have an idea that they want a studio to make happen and they can decide they want an idea that the studio have told us is happening. A story can be what people want even if it's not something they ever asked for, and creators should certainly have an idea of what people don't want without having to give them a survey first.

I certainly wanted DS9 and Voyager when I was told they were coming out, and I don't want a Trek series set at Starfleet Academy or a sitcom set on a resort. A Star Trek origins movie... that doesn't make much sense to me seeing as we've already seen Star Trek's origin, so I'm filing that under 'don't want' as well for the time being.

 

[Tomalak]

I didn't really want a prequel series in 2001, and didn't enjoy it much.

But I think now I'm open to anything really, as long as it is well-written and does something new and interesting with the Star Trek universe.

That's why I was lukewarm on the whole "Star Trek: Legacy" pitch, which seemed to be boldly going where we've all gone loads of times before.

"Star Trek Begins" could go either way, so I have a relatively open mind. The existence (and, arguably, failure) of Enterprise shouldn't preclude another story in that space if it has something to say.

I just don't think it'll ever happen so I'm not going to get too invested or worked up about it.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I’m still waiting for the show that I want.

And what show would that be?

 

[Dukhat]

And what show would that be?

A show set in the Lost Era.

 

[fireproof78]

I think there's two different ways to want a show or movie: people can have an idea that they want a studio to make happen and they can decide they want an idea that the studio have told us is happening. A story can be what people want even if it's not something they ever asked for, and creators should certainly have an idea of what people don't want without having to give them a survey first.

Based upon what data though? Studios are not fans, nor do they think like fans. When they do, it's not always great.

Case in point: the producer on the "John Carter" film was a huge fan of the original books, and assumed everyone knew about the books. So, his advertising was explicitly designed to evoke a feeling based upon his notion that people would be familiar to recognize the feeling. When the film underperformed part of it was simply that it was poorly advertised and built with only fans in mind.

One of the reasons I think Trek is floundering is that studios go back to what they think people want, not just fans. They're not just looking at Trek, or a specific IP, but also at the larger media landscape. When they do look at Trek its always "Ok, what are the most popular and iconographic elements, like Khan, like Kirk and Spock, or a revenge based plot."

As always, that's my speculation, but I feel like even if they do "We think we know what fans want" they still are not fans. And it goes sideways.

 

[Tomalak]

A show set in the Lost Era.

Bet you can't wait for Section 31!

 

[Firebird]

Based upon what data though? Studios are not fans, nor do they think like fans. When they do, it's not always great.

Case in point: the producer on the "John Carter" film was a huge fan of the original books, and assumed everyone knew about the books. So, his advertising was explicitly designed to evoke a feeling based upon his notion that people would be familiar to recognize the feeling. When the film underperformed part of it was simply that it was poorly advertised and built with only fans in mind.

One of the reasons I think Trek is floundering is that studios go back to what they think people want, not just fans. They're not just looking at Trek, or a specific IP, but also at the larger media landscape. When they do look at Trek its always "Ok, what are the most popular and iconographic elements, like Khan, like Kirk and Spock, or a revenge based plot."

As always, that's my speculation, but I feel like even if they do "We think we know what fans want" they still are not fans. And it goes sideways.

At this point, whether the head writer of the project is a Trek fan is a matter of indifference to me as we've had all kinds in the history of the franchise. What does matter is whether they can put together a compelling story that I can give a damn about that doesn't jingle big shiny keys in front of me in lieu of anything substantial.

The only time I had a strong opinion about it was during the press for the first Kelvin timeline movie. JJ Abrams brought up that he was never a Trek fan and more of a Star Wars fan so many times that I grew tired of hearing that again and again and again. The way it was used as a promotional gag never sat well with me because it fed into the tired franchise competition that doesn't really exist.

 

[fireproof78]

he only time I had a strong opinion about it was during the press for the first Kelvin timeline movie. JJ Abrams brought up that he was never a Trek fan and more of a Star Wars fan so many times that I grew tired of hearing that again and again and again. The way it was used as a promotional gag never sat well with me because it fed into the tired franchise competition that doesn't really exist.

Not only that but there was never any media follow up on that stupid line. So Abrams going "I was never a Star Wars fan" became a point of contention that ignores how he grew and appreciated the franchise through his work.

It's stupid, short sighted, tribalistic nonsense to create division and...not much else.

 

[Frontis]

Demons/Terra Prime is a suitable ending to Enterprise for those who wish to ignore TATV.

Yes, I already posted somewhere else that Terra Prime would have been a good ending.

 

[jackoverfull]

At this point, whether the head writer of the project is a Trek fan is a matter of indifference to me as we've had all kinds in the history of the franchise. What does matter is whether they can put together a compelling story that I can give a damn about that doesn't jingle big shiny keys in front of me in lieu of anything substantial.

Amen to this.

Always said I don’t care much about the setting and even less about the era, what I want are well written stories.

 

[Dukhat]

One of the reasons I think Trek is floundering is that studios go back to what they think people want, not just fans. They're not just looking at Trek, or a specific IP, but also at the larger media landscape. When they do look at Trek it’s always "Ok, what are the most popular and iconographic elements, like Khan, like Kirk and Spock, or a revenge based plot."

That’s essentially how I feel about Lower Decks. With CBSAA/P+’s agenda at the time to have multiple Trek series focused on different things, somebody had the idea to make an animated comedy series focusing on Star Trek memberberries. And while there might have been a certain percentage of fans that might have wanted this or found the concept amusing after-the-fact, if this had been CBSAA’s only Trek show, I think it would have bombed spectacularly specifically because it only catered to a small segment of the fandom, and would have alienated new fans who have no idea what half the jokes were about (or at best, made other Trek fans apathetic about a show where they didn’t feel the need to have 50 years of Trek references shoved in their faces with the Star Trek version of South Park.)

Let’s face it: the general television viewing audience (even those who like sitcoms) are not Lower Decks’s target audience. As a stand-alone show, it would have failed.

 

[FederationHistorian]

A show set in the Lost Era.

You’ll have the upcoming S31 movie. And whatever Rachael Garrett spinoff that comes from it. So, I would say that TPTB actually are interested in giving you want you want.

The question is: are you interested in what they want to give you?

 

[Dukhat]

You’ll have the upcoming S31 movie. And whatever Rachael Garrett spinoff that comes from it. So, I would say that TPTB actually are interested in giving you want you want.

The question is: are you interested in what they want to give you?

First, TPTB are interested in making a Guardians of the Galaxy TV movie using ‘Section 31’ as an excuse. They are not interested in making a show that specifically has to do with the Lost Era or events that took place in that time.

And second, the use of Rachel Garrett is most likely just fanwank to get people like me to watch the movie. Unless she’s getting command of the Enterprise-C in this movie, her character is nothing more than a name-drop in physical form.

So, no. I am not remotely interested in anything that has to do with Section 31 or whatever the current people in charge are trying to make it. And the visual aesthetic is going to be what we saw in DSC, not what I would realistically want to see from the time period between the end of TUC and the start of TNG.

 

[Tomalak]

And second, the use of Rachel Garrett is most likely just fanwank to get people like me to watch the movie. Unless she’s getting command of the Enterprise-C in this movie, her character is nothing more than a name-drop in physical form.

Surely it's the opposite?

If she only exists to show the Enterprise-C, it's fanwank. If they explore her character beyond the one thing we know about her, that would be worthwhile and the opposite of fanwank, at least for me.

But I agree in general, it's much more likely that she's a minor character and barely more than a name check.

 

[Dukhat]

Surely it's the opposite?

If she only exists to show the Enterprise-C, it's fanwank. If they explore her character beyond the one thing we know about her, that would be worthwhile and the opposite of fanwank, at least for me.

But I agree in general, it's much more likely that she's a minor character and barely more than a name check.

Sure, you can look at it that way. The point I was trying to make (and it’s entirely possible that I wasn’t being very clear) was that this character can be one of two things:

1. Just a random character that has zero connection to the character we saw in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” other than her name, or

2. A character that the writers are indeed trying to flesh out more in an effort to develop them into the person who will eventually become captain of the Enterprise.

The first option assumes that the character was conceived as just a general Starfleet officer, and that they decided to make her Garrett after the fact just for fanwank purposes. The second option assumes that they made a concerted effort from the beginning to have the character be Garrett for a specific reason. Only upon watching the movie and seeing how this character is being used will we know which option is the one they went with. But this movie isn’t about Rachel Garrett. I don’t think it’s even about Section 31 as we know it, despite it being the title. It’s about Georgiou and her path to redemption (or something), with the other characters as peripheral Guardians of the Galaxy. It’s a vehicle for Yeoh, not the actor who’s playing Garrett.

 

[fireproof78]

It could be about Georgiou and Garrett.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It could be about Georgiou and Garrett.

"One's a crazy dictator from the past and future! The other is a character who appeared for five minutes and then died! Together they are SPACE SPIES!!!!" Coming soon to Paramount+

 

[fireproof78]

"One's a crazy dictator from the past and future! The other is a character who appeared for five minutes and then died! Together they are SPACE SPIES!!!!" Coming soon to Paramount+

Let's be real: if it was a Bashir/Garak joint about Section 31 there would not be as many complaints and Garak's murderous and genocidal past would be ignored.