Star Trek XIV: What do you want?

[Lord Garth]

So how does Nolan do it? He delivers spectacle after spectacle the way he likes it, the films make money and studios ask for more. You don’t need a programmed franchise, just a way of attracting talent. Even something controlled like the MCU is evidence that it’s all about the execution, not just a few well-known characters. Marvel Studios made a whole bunch of them famous.

1. Interstellar is a phenomenal movie. But it's also not part of a franchise. No one's expecting a continuing series of Interstellar Films.

2. I haven't watched very many MCU Films. The last one I saw was X-Men: First Class in 2011. So it's been 10 years. So I have no idea what they've been up to. But I can't picture them doing a movie like Interstellar.

3. The Abrams Star Trek Films aren't really my style, but I think they could've kept them going had they not squandered their momentum by taking so long to come out with them.

EDITED TO ADD: Before someone says, "You haven't seen the last 10 years of MCU Films?!?!! You need to watch ___, ____, and ____!!!!!!!!" No thanks, save it. I hear enough of that from my brother. Not interested.

 

[fireproof78]

So how does Nolan do it? He delivers spectacle after spectacle the way he likes it, the films make money and studios ask for more. You don’t need a programmed franchise, just a way of attracting talent. Even something controlled like the MCU is evidence that it’s all about the execution, not just a few well-known characters. Marvel Studios made a whole bunch of them famous.

One, Nolan does things his way and he doesn't take any gruff from the studio. He is a meticulous director who values his own approach. MCU was a well orchestrated plan that could not be repeated with someone at the helm firmly guiding it and willing to endure loses if the film doesn't do well. Most studios are not willing to take that risk. Not even Star Wars took that risk.

Nolan and the MCU are unique and even they have problems. Certainly Nolan was not immune from criticism for working within a franchise like Batman. Star Trek is even worse in its fan base than most for nitpicking.

1. Interstellar is a phenomenal movie. But it's also not part of a franchise. No one's expecting a continuing series of Interstellar Films.

2. I haven't watched very many MCU Films. The last one I saw was X-Men: First Class in 2011. So it's been 10 years. So I have no idea what they've been up to. But I can't picture them doing a movie like Interstellar.

3. The Abrams Star Trek Films aren't really my style, but I think they could've kept them going had they not squandered their momentum by taking so long to come out with them.

EDITED TO ADD: Before someone says, "You haven't seen the last 10 years of MCU Films?!?!! You need to watch ___, ____, and ____!!!!!!!!" No thanks, save it. I hear enough of that from my brother. Not interested.

I have no interest in the Marvel films. I watched Avengers so Marvel would release my family as hostages and never looked back. To say the MCU is the template for what is to be done with franchises is short sighted at best.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

It’s not the one and only template for what should be done with franchises, just an example that you can be confident enough to make a film about Iron Man when you’ve sold your film rights to Spider-Man. If Star Trek had that degree of confidence in execution, we’d have an O’Brien family film by now. And they don’t have to be connected at all except by obviously being Star Trek.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s not the one and only template for what should be done with franchises, just an example that you can be confident enough to make a film about Iron Man when you’ve sold your film rights to Spider-Man. If Star Trek had that degree of confidence in execution, we’d have an O’Brien family film by now. And they don’t have to be connected at all except by obviously being Star Trek.

Problem is that Marvel and Nolan are overconfident and willing to weather losses. Most studios are not, and I don't blame them one bit.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

MCU? Losses?

Nolan, perhaps with Tenet during a pandemic.

 

[fireproof78]

MCU? Losses?

Nolan, perhaps with Tenet during a pandemic.

I said they were willing to weather losses. If a film underperformed they were not going to stop with the phases of their plan. Few studios are willing to do that. As I said, even Lucasfilm and Disney with Star Wars changed course straight from Bob Iger when films underperformed.

MCU is a standard that is ridiculous to try to adhere too. Star Trek would do well to avoid it.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But if the MCU hadn’t been executed well, losses would’ve actually occurred and brought the entire project to a halt. It’s not like the MCU began with a treasure trove that would’ve ensured all the phases got made regardless. They’ve had the right people in charge at the right time, making one successful movie after another (some being better than others, of course).

I just don’t like seeing fans give up and assume that Star Trek doesn’t have a theatrical future beyond Kirk and Spock. The question is how to come up with a variety of successful films regardless of continuity. What needs to change and where?

 

[fireproof78]

But if the MCU hadn’t been executed well, losses would’ve actually occurred and brought the entire project to a halt. It’s not like the MCU began with a treasure trove that would’ve ensured all the phases got made regardless. They’ve had the right people in charge at the right time, making one successful movie after another (some being better than others, of course).

I just don’t like seeing fans give up and assume that Star Trek doesn’t have a theatrical future beyond Kirk and Spock. The question is how to come up with a variety of successful films regardless of continuity. What needs to change and where?

What needs to change is a willingness to endure losses and take risks. That isn't present. And no, MCU had a plan and was going for it, loses or not. That was the point of the phases. They structured it like comic book releases. One doesn't work, well we've got another one coming out.

But, we do not like a risk seeking environment. We live in a risk adverse environment and Star Trek isn't the one that companies are willing to bank on. What needs to change is a willingness to actually make changes and stick to them without revisiting the past. That is not on the table at this point in time.

 

[valkyrie013]

Nolan does it because people trust that he makes good movies. Same with James Cameron.

So, if you do a new crew and ship, you can't have some no name director or unknown actor crew, need at least an A star or a good director. Then you have a chance at a good take.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

And no, MCU had a plan and was going for it, loses or not. That was the point of the phases. They structured it like comic book releases. One doesn't work, well we've got another one coming out.

If one movie hadn’t worked, the losses might have been weathered, but if two or three or four had been failures then the project would’ve come to a screeching halt like some of the attempts to copy the MCU. The phases aren’t Plans B, C, D and E, because at some point that would involve replacing everyone or deciding there is no future in theatrical releases. They’re just chapters from the same core group, a bit like TV seasons culminating in season finales with increasing stakes.

Nolan does it because people trust that he makes good movies. Same with James Cameron.

Nolan does it because he actually makes good movies, like James Cameron most of the time. It’s not about name recognition: someone knew what they were doing when they picked Nolan for Batman Begins.

 

[Vger23]

This is a totally different game, no matter how many arguments you attempt to make.

Star Trek is a brand that drives general audiences away. MCU and Nolan are brands that draw general audiences…completely different market positions. Yes, Trek has a built-in fan base, but even they are fickle and will turn on a product almost instantly. Otherwise, a Star Trek film has to have major mass-appeal, great word-of-mouth, and excellent reviews to even have a chance of being successful drawing general audiences.

 

[fireproof78]

one movie hadn’t worked, the losses might have been weathered,

Which is one more than most. Paramount definitely hasn't demonstrated the stomach for it.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Star Trek is a brand that drives general audiences away.

Why does it have to?

Yes, Trek has a built-in fan base, but even they are fickle and will turn on a product almost instantly.

Obviously the goal of any film should be to expand the fanbase by reaching for new audiences, not just cater to whoever happened to grow up with specific iterations of Star Trek.

Otherwise, a Star Trek film has to have major mass-appeal, great word-of-mouth, and excellent reviews to even have a chance of being successful drawing general audiences.

Yes, and that’s exactly what I want, rather than settle for just any Star Trek movie which only fans would rate 8/10 on average.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Expanding on the idea of the Kelvinverse coming to the 24th century, if they use the current cast, a “Yesterday’s Enterprise” movie could work.

I'd be fine with a "Yesterday's Enterprise"-ISH movie.

Meaning: When Chris Hemsworth was attached, or rumored to be, there was talk that the Kelvin would travel forward in time and Kirk would finally meet his father. Then they'd have to send the Kelvin back to put things right.

THAT is what I want. But I'll take any Kelvin stuff, really.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Star Trek is a brand that drives general audiences away.

If it was a Star Trek/Star Wars crossover film, would this still be true?

I'd be fine with a "Yesterday's Enterprise"-ISH movie.

Meaning: When Chris Hemsworth was attached, or rumored to be, there was talk that the Kelvin would travel forward in time and Kirk would finally meet his father. Then they'd have to send the Kelvin back to put things right.

THAT is what I want. But I'll take any Kelvin stuff, really.

I’m just wondering if the film really needs Hemsworth at this point. Is there anything wrong with Kirk being sent back in time and having to be a father figure for his younger self to set the timeline right?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Is there anything wrong with Kirk being sent back in time and having to be a father figure for his younger self to set the timeline right?

I would say so, yeah.

I mean, if you're talking resetting the Kelvin timeline so that it matches the prime one, I don't see that happening at all. The Kelvinverse is what it is, just leave it at that.

That being said, I think nuKirk deserves a chance to actually know his father, and a "Yesterday's Kelvin" would be a good way to do that.

 

[FederationHistorian]

I would say so, yeah.

I mean, if you're talking resetting the Kelvin timeline so that it matches the prime one, I don't see that happening at all. The Kelvinverse is what it is, just leave it at that.

That being said, I think nuKirk deserves a chance to actually know his father, and a "Yesterday's Kelvin" would be a good way to do that.

If that’s done, is there any point to bringing back Khan for Trek XIV then?

Sounds like there needs to be two different Kelvin movies – "Yesterday’s Kelvin", and then nu Kirk et al. & Khan in the 24th century. Maybe film them back-to-back so that they can be released within a year of each other?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If that’s done, is there any point to bringing back Khan for Trek XIV then?

No, and there never was.

Benedict Cumberbatch was great, but Khan deserves to rot in that cryo-sleep tube.

 

[fireproof78]

If that’s done, is there any point to bringing back Khan for Trek XIV then?

No. Cumberbatch has Harrison would have served very well.

 

[M'Sharak]

... but Khan deserves to rot in that cryo-sleep tube.

You left out " ... because he's EEEEEVIL!"

I'm going to go ahead and score this as if you said it anyway, since you've made sure to judgmentally hammer on that point Every. Single. Other. Time. you've ever talked about Khan in this forum.

Gotta keep that streak going, right?