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

[The Wormhole]

I'd like to see Strangers From the Sky adapted.

Didn't that kind of already happen with Carbon Creek? Or do you mean a faithful adaptation set in a near future with submarines that size of Seaquest which answer to a command authority that has somehow merged the Pentagon and Kremlin and they're fighting cyborg terrorists?

I guess it's not the worst idea I heard. But if we're adapting old novels, I'd go with Final Frontier, the Diane Carey novel about Robert April and George Kirk. With Adrian Holmes wearing a cardigan and Chris Hemsworth. It's just as viable as a "Star Trek Begins" as anything else.

 

[FredH]

Reads like trite fanwank

But then, consider the source.

Which?

 

[valkyrie013]

Trek is one of those franchises that doesn't tend to build 'a new mass audience'. Once in a while they manage to get non-Trekkies to come along en masse, but the majority lose interest after a while. (IMO, as ever.)

2009 called..
Trek does need to occasionally go fishing for new blood with a movie that requires no for knowledge of trek. New blood.. more money. Theatre movie should appeal to the most masses, why a war story with a bunch of action would be an idle candidate.

I want a romulan war entry.. but a series. Preferably animated so they can use the enterprise crew.

 

[fireproof78]

2009 called..
Trek does need to occasionally go fishing for new blood with a movie that requires no for knowledge of trek. New blood.. more money. Theatre movie should appeal to the most masses, why a war story with a bunch of action would be an idle candidate.

Yes, indeed.

And the Romulan War story is such a deep lore pull it's not the story.

 

[Dukhat]

Just like how ENT botched the formation of the Federation, no movie about the Romulan war is ever going to live up to fan expectations. There’s been almost 60 years of fans coming up with their own head-canon about the war, and anything the powers that be produce now will be completely different from how the people that actually want this will have envisioned it. Sure, that could be a good thing, maybe? Let’s just say I have my doubts. That’s why this ‘Star Trek origin story’ has little appeal for me.

Some things are just better left to people’s imaginations.

 

[Commander Troi]

2009 called..
Trek does need to occasionally go fishing for new blood with a movie that requires no for knowledge of trek. New blood.. more money. Theatre movie should appeal to the most masses, why a war story with a bunch of action would be an idle candidate.

i agree with you up to the war story being ideal. I mean, a really well written one might be able to do what's needed, but we need something with characters that will appeal to a mass audience. Yes, that may mean Kirk and Spock again. A first mission. Or conversely, in the period between Enterprise and Discovery. I like @fireproof78's idea. An external threat that brings the 4 founding races together.

 

[BillJ]

Just more nostalgia. I think it might end up blowing up in Paramount's face.

 

[Nerys Myk]

According to the Trades, it looks like the Star Trek origins film will be the first to lens (Q4 this year supposedly).

When should it take place? What would you like to see in it?

IMO this film is Paramount's best bet to build a new mass audience for Star Trek. The approach of going back to the basics worked well for Star Trek 2009, before they fumbled that franchise.


Personally, I'd want this film to happen during the Romulan War leading into the birth of the Federation.

There's been some successful grounded war epics lately, from Oppenheimer to Masters of Air on Apple:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Add a young, sexy cast. Perhaps Tiberius Kirk in his 20s as a MACO in the war, as your lead. And you may have some general audience appeal.

The Romulan war is a great entry point. You have very submarine-esque Starships. Nuclear weapons. Only a few alien races in play. It could be quite grounded for those who are new to Trek.

Links?

Is Oppenheimer a "war" epic? It's a bioflick that mostly covers the development of the A-Bomb which of course happened during WWII.

 

[FredH]

We would have if the show hadn't ended early, but TATV doesn't count as showing the founding of the Federation.

Eh, we saw the main members come together into the start of their alliance. After that, all we missed were the procedural details of the same people scratching out “Coalition” and writing “Federation” over it. We know what happened and why.

 

[FredH]

Just like how ENT botched the formation of the Federation, no movie about the Romulan war is ever going to live up to fan expectations. There’s been almost 60 years of fans coming up with their own head-canon about the war, and anything the powers that be produce now will be completely different from how the people that actually want this will have envisioned it. Sure, that could be a good thing, maybe? Let’s just say I have my doubts. That’s why this ‘Star Trek origin story’ has little appeal for me.

Some things are just better left to people’s imaginations.

See, don’t think ENT botched it. We saw the important part: how Earth, Vulcan, Andor and stellar went from being separate, mutually tense worlds to making an active choice to form an alliance, and why they did so. That’s the important part. We don’t need to see more; we know what happens, and we would even if ENT were the only Trek show in existence. The constitutional-convention further details can, yeah, be left to people’s imaginations.

(I do wish the last pre-TATV episode hadn’t ended the way it did — Trip & T’Pol deserved some kind of emotional coda/healing — but oh well.)

 

[Dukhat]

See, don’t think ENT botched it. We saw the important part: how Earth, Vulcan, Andor and stellar went from being separate, mutually tense worlds to making an active choice to form an alliance, and why they did so. That’s the important part. We don’t need to see more; we know what happens, and we would even if ENT were the only Trek show in existence. The constitutional-convention further details can, yeah, be left to people’s imaginations.

(I do wish the last pre-TATV episode hadn’t ended the way it did — Trip & T’Pol deserved some kind of emotional coda/healing — but oh well.)

I respect your viewpoint. My point was more that most of the show wasn’t about the formation of the Federation. It was about a completely unqualified crew flying around in outer space for two seasons, some stupid time war going on in the background that was foisted on the producers by UPN, the crew running around in their underwear, a third season that was a thinly disguised 9-11 allegory, and a fourth season with TOS references and Brent Spiner shoved in our faces. The formation of the Federation aspect of the show was quite minimal in comparison.

 

[FredH]

I respect your viewpoint. My point was more that most of the show wasn’t about the formation of the Federation. It was about a completely unqualified crew flying around in outer space for two seasons, some stupid time war going on in the background that was foisted on the producers by UPN, the crew running around in their underwear, a third season that was a thinly disguised 9-11 allegory, and a fourth season with TOS references and Brent Spiner shoved in our faces. The formation of the Federation aspect of the show was quite minimal in comparison.

I can certainly see where you’re coming from. I do think it actually helps to have all that earlier stuff, as gradually providing reasons for (and seeds of) the alliance that eventually forms, rather than just jumping in — I like that Archer and the Vulcans start off with very different attitudes compared to where they end up, and that we get to see them getting the experience that later generations will start off already having. I’ve often seen the argument that they don’t seem to get things that would be obvious to, say, Kirk — yes, precisely! This is how that stuff gets learned.

But I admit I can’t argue with you about the underwear thing. Everything else I thought brought something to the table, but sure: that didn’t.

 

[Dr. K.R. Kollman hon.]

"Star Trek Begins"

Will the sequel be called "The Dark Matter Knight"?

 

[CorporalClegg]

"You either die trying to reach warp ten, or you live long enough to see yourself become a lizard."

 

[HotRod]

https://archive.org/details/star-trek-the-beginning-unproduced/mode/1up

If anybody wants to kill waste the rest of their afternoon and read the script to Star Trek: The Beginning, there it is.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I got as far as "Jaxx".

 

[HotRod]

I got as far as "Jaxx".

I'm laid off with nothing better to do with my time. I read it. It's reads like a Michael Bay movie.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Needless objectification of Jeri Ryan included?

Oh right.

 

[evilchumlee]

"The origin of the story" should probably be Khan/Eugenics Wars. That's basically where things "diverge" from our world, but I also don't see that being something to base a mass market movie on...

The only other thing that makes sense for that, if they care even the slightest degree about any established lore and aren't just going in for a total reboot would be like, the first "real" warp vessel after Phoenix... but honestly that sounds like it would be a fairly limited story.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Oh shit, it's that 1992 thing they never quite announced, isn't it? Like Legacy they've booted it to a movie.