Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by valden, Mar 4, 2023.
Yup. Safe means money.
Visiting a parallel Earth like Baku is safe (and vintage TOS).
Dealing with a god-like being is safe (and vintage TOS).
A socially conscious plot that’s basically a comedy is safe (and vintage TOS).
Dealing with sentient A.I. and living machines like V'ger is safe (and vintage TOS).
Time travel stories are safe, be that WW2, 1960s, 1980s, or 21st century (and vintage TOS).
Even just having the Klingons as antagonists again is safe (and vintage TOS).
I don’t see the Abrams films going to those wells to reuse them in a modern setting. Those films are going for specific tropes and reusing them over and over as that's what they think are safe for them.
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this point. The difference, perhaps, is one of emphasis. It's true, in theory, the Kelvinverse is free to "go wild" and be completely different from what has come before. It's certainly what I would want to see. My view is artists should be totally unbeholden to "the fans" and make what they wish--with the proviso that fans (or anyone), AFTER having seen/heard/read/etc. the "thing", are free to like, dislike, love, hate, be indifferent, and so on. However, in the real world of franchise properties, few, if any, artists are given that degree of freedom. Blaming Abrams for a lack of "pure originality" without at least acknowledging the reality of studio/IP owner pressure to "follow a formula" would be...disingenuous.
As an artist, I agree. But even within a formula established by the studio, why couldn’t a plot like following work:
“The crew of the Enterprise encounters the Klingons on a planet that resembles 2020s Earth – a planet that also has regenerative properties and is ruled by a sentient machine that governs by algorithm.”
It takes from the safe ideas I listed above, while creating something new and original from the Kelvinverse. While still allowing them to use their established tropes of the three Kelvin films. And probably would be quite affordable for Paramount as well.
I don’t see how this is not safe.
They are not being rewarded for doing anything differently.
It's safe enough. It changes nothing, adds limited data, and is predictable.
Nah. I say bring in someone else. I'm tired of his mystery boxes.
I don't mind JJ returning but I think that ship has sailed; altho I think he could make a tight budget movie like what I'd seen in Super 8. I'm with Pubert about the mystery box, but a person like Abrams could spark Star Trek movie interests again.
JJ fucked Star Trek up (then he did the same to Star Wars). There is no turning back. I rather rewatch old Star Trek (and Wars) now
You could even if he makes new movies.
sorry I didnt notice what sub-forum I was in
So, if that’s the idea for a safe movie, does Abrams go for it and comes back? Knowing that Trek is in a cost cutting phase right now, and TPTB might want it to be a mid-budget movie, like Super 8 and the Cloverfield films?.Or does he stay home, because he wants the big budgets, like he got with the three Kelvin film and the Star Wars sequel trilogy, as that’s what gets sci-fi into the top 10 grossing films of the year?
If by "fucked it up" you mean "revived and revitalised both franchises", I guess I could agree.
I mean, Star Wars under the new management has so far put out 5 movies, 3 TV shows and 7 or 8 streaming shows, right? Out of all that JJ was responsible for only 2 movies, even if you think they were fuckups.
I think for the right script he would give it a shot. Because I think Abrams genuinely enjoys Trek.
I never had a problem with Abrams as a director. But I have a problem with his writers and with him as a writer. Especially in the past decade or so.
Separate names with a comma.