Cannot wait!
[waits]
[waits]
WandaVision Director Matt Shakman to helm next Trek movie
- Thread starter Ryan Thomas Riddle
- Start date
Ideally, they somehow capture Interstellar (a film made with $165 million in 2014 btw). I know Interstellar had Nolan directing but if they can hook the audience with a similar movie, something a bit more cerebral, less on the action and with amazing vfx, while maintaining the energy/optimism of Trek (particularly Kelvin Trek) then they can fill the void for that type of movie and success may follow. There was a string of these movies that people loved, Interstellar in 2014, The Martian in 2015, Arrival in 2016. A Star Trek movie could definitely be that kind of movie.
Those are all great movies. But they're after the Marvel / Star Wars crowd.
I don't think cerebral is on the radar. Leave cerebral Trek to the small screen (well ... maybe one day).
For a Trek flick, just give me a solid story, engaging characters with some heart and soul and a decent space battle (or two). Sorted.
Last edited:
Indeed. It aren't that hard.
Also, can still be cerebral. Action doesn't preclude the possibility.
Nope. It's rock solid. Its not speculation. Thats what I've been told on good authority so why be skeptical about it?
With the possible exception of a few moments in TMP*, Trek for the big screen has never done cerebral.
Even on the television shows, I think genuinely cerebral moments have been exceedingly rare. The most prominent instance of "cerebral" in all of Trek--the one which everyone knows and has heard about again and again--is when "too cerebral" was given by Gene Roddenberry as the reason for NBC's rejection of the first pilot, back in early 1965.
Since that story first entered general circulation in Trekdom, the notion that Trek somehow had to be "more cerebral" has cropped up on a regular basis. But it's always more of an incantation than a concrete recommendation, because Trek has almost never, in actual fact, been particularly cerebral. In Trek fandom, "cerebral" has mostly become one of those "worship words" that people say, but it doesn't seem to carry much of the same meaning as the definition we find in the dictionary.
Yeah, that ought to do fine. Just tell us a good story. If it's good enough, we could even skip the space battle, maybe.
* (and I'm being generous here -- those were more playing at being cerebral than actually achieving it)
I didn't realise that's the way I was thinking about "cerebral trek". And yeah, I agree, Trek isn't very cerebral when you think about it.
Pretty much this.
For me, 'cerebral' would be the wrong wording. What I always hoped of Trek movies, was, that they would be 'epic' in some way. Let them have a space battle, let them have slightly too much characters and plotlines and let them have look 'good'. Maybe, you could see 'The way of the warrior' as a reference for what I have in mind. And yes, STXI fulfilled these expectations in some ways, so I always hoped, that they would ride this train further in the next movies. But then the next films became rather "smaller" again and so I just hope, as I wrote earlier in this thread, for an 'epic conclusion' of this sideline in TREK.
Making a cinematic movie is a risky proposition in covid times. When billion-dollar movies are a thing again, maybe Trek has a slim chance to do that. But going for TV directors makes me think TV budget and that they're trying to do Wrath of Khan again.
Tribble blood is not dumb. Makes more sense than a lot of medical tech in Star Trek.
But normal cinema goers, just don’t like Star Trek and most normals think think it’s for nerds. We all love Star Trek, but it’s just not mainstream enough and so doesn’t make the movie budget people happy enough. I don’t know what the best solution is, but the worry I have is that they do another ST Beyond, which also had a famous action director, who just didn’t seem to get it. Dare I say it, bring back Frakes to direct or to be really risky, Tarantino (which will never happen). Then Rom Moore to write, or someone who’s done it before like Nicolas Myer who was in the frame 3 years or so ago. Sadly, this news isn’t really news and is just wasting our time and MUCH worse, raising our hopes.
Because it still is by and large. And, it also is extremely insular. I was happy with 09 because my wife who hated anything Star Trek actually enjoyed it. But, it just hasn't moved past that.
Seriously, how and why? It's been in Trek before, it's part of the lore. DS9 is dumb because the Dominion had it?
Augment blood. Ancient outlawed technology being able to do amazing things is kind of cool, IMHO. Pre-World War 3 era Earth would definitely engineer people to survive radiation.
This bit was definitely dumb.
You can always find something that's dumb in a movie or TV show.
The problem for me is when you keep piling on the dumb. There's a threshold. You've got the Enterprise underwater and tribble blood, if those are your only big dumbs, then okay, but when you keep adding more and more on top of that, then eventually the entire movie becomes dumb.
But this is all beside the point.
Since augment blood isn't dumb I guess that movie did alright 
I guess it's one of those YMMV things. Trek isn't real, it's a goofy world where the gravity never fails, aliens are humans with forehead bumps and there's sound in space. Human's having radiation-beating biotech in the 60's (or whenever Khan was created) then burying the tech after a war in the 90's is totally fine by me.
The line of silliness is definitely subjective but it still amazes me where that line gets drawn for a lot of people. Human looking aliens? Totally fine. Blood based therapies? Not fine...
Similar threads
