STAR TREK 4: KELVIN LIVES!

We're supposedly getting a new film with Pine & Co. in December 2023. The powers that be have hinted that they might not longer be aiming for MEGABLOCKBUSTER DOUGH this time and instead making something more modest. So with that in mind, what would you like to see out of Star Trek 4?

Hard to say. Strange New Worlds is scratching my itch for classic style Trek stories, and the movies still need to maintain some form of action/adventure content. After Beyond I wanted to see more of this crew...but that was six years ago at this point.

If I had one "wish list" item, it would be for Jaylah to join the crew after her academy time.

Jaylah taking Chekov's slot on the crew (for obvious reasons) would be nice.

The "don't spend a lot of money on this one" ethos got us Wrath of Khan, so fingers crossed some similar mojo comes into play.

DailyRich wrote:

The "don't spend a lot of money on this one" ethos got us Wrath of Khan, so fingers crossed some similar mojo comes into play.

Writer: "Khan? Hey, that gives me an idea..."

(I appear out of the shadows, subdue them, and steal their computer)

A theatrical film feels kind of pointless now. With the original ten films, the appeal was that they were glorified TV reunions put on the big screen. It’s amazing how Kelvin films were seen as a major rejuvenation for the franchise, only to see it collapse just two films later. And just when Trek’s future looked uncertain, there came the new shows just one year later. Whether you were satisfied with them or not, they managed to grab an audience and expand in a way that the Kelvin films couldn’t. It’s nuts.

It is truly bizarre how the tables have completely flipped. Paramount has been struggling for six years now as they try to figure out what to do with theatrical Trek in the wake of Beyond (which I really dug) underperforming. Meanwhile they've managed to launch not one, but FIVE successful new Trek TV shows in the interim. That's wild.

Yeah I'd say Trek's theatrical window has closed (I thought Beyond was bad), but I mean who really knows how the audiences would respond to a great trailer and some good buzz after six years have passed?

If they can keep to a sub-blockbuster budget, I think a new run of Trek films will do just fine. They just need to realize that it isn't Star Wars and will never make Star Wars money. A modern blockbuster franchise this is not.

But the long-standing problem with all Trek movies is that you have these huge above-the-line costs for the big cast of actors before you even get to make the movie. Very tough to make the kind of profits today's shareholders are expecting/demanding.

The Schlocketeer wrote:

It is truly bizarre how the tables have completely flipped. Paramount has been struggling for six years now as they try to figure out what to do with theatrical Trek in the wake of Beyond (which I really dug) underperforming. Meanwhile they've managed to launch not one, but FIVE successful new Trek TV shows in the interim. That's wild.

I think the one failing Paramount did in trying to make the Kelvin films a thing was not push Bad Robot into striking while the iron was hot. Waiting four years just for J.J. Abrams to direct was a dumb move. If Abrams was not available due to SUPER 8, they should have just looked elsewhere. But I get it. His name had marquee value in the 2000s.

To be fair, it was CBS handling the new shows prior to the remerger with Viacom. I’m sure Paramount was very ecstatic to reunite and have Trek as their crown jewel.

Makes me wonder where Trek would have gone if there had been no split between companies back in 2005. The trajectory might have been drastic.

Waiting four years and then blowing arguably the biggest villain in Trek history and one of its signature moments with absolutely no build-up or emotional investment.

They (along with everyone else in the industry) were realllllyyy pushing for their own 'Dark Knight' moment, just without the actual effort put into it.

It’s funny how they were brazenly open about following the TDK template right down to even referring to Khan as “the Joker of Star Trek”, like give me a break with that horseshit. It doesn’t help that the film ages poorly due to Cumberbatch being cast as an Indian character. That would NOT fly today.

Of course, Montalban was a Mexican instead of Indian, but that was par the course for the 60s.

Well, and Montalban was brilliant in portraying this naturally theatrical "revenge is the best kind of revenge" villain. From memory Cumberbatch seemed a bit lost. In fairness that's story, too. Montalban's motivations are clear and straight forward, Cumberbatch's are kept as secret.

Stockslivevan wrote:

It’s funny how they were brazenly open about following the TDK template right down to even referring to Khan as “the Joker of Star Trek”, like give me a break with that horseshit. It doesn’t help that the film ages poorly due to Cumberbatch being cast as an Indian character. That would NOT fly today.

Of course, Montalban was a Mexican instead of Indian, but that was par the course for the 60s.

Even for 2013, that was bad. Hell, just casting the whitest man on the planet for Khan would've been bad in the 90's.

I do get why such decisions were made in that time specifically. It’s from a time when filmmakers were scared shitless of offending people of color by casting them as villains and stereotypes. That’s why you get Guy Pearce as the “Mandarin”, Liam Nelson as Ra’s Al Ghul, Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One, etc. And then POC is like “uh, you’re taking away our parts and giving them to white people! That’s even worse!”

I still kind of laugh at Roberto Orci’s going online at fan sites, coked out, defending casting a white actor as Khan. “I wanted to show that WE THE WHITE PEOPLE are just as bad as the Middle Eastern terrorists!” Okay buddy, ever heard of the Holocaust? We know white people can be bad lol

I always thought Guy Pearce's "Mandarin" was a clever subversion by him using a proxy of what people expected a terrorist to look like.

I'm so glad Orci committed career suicide. What an entitled, arrogant asshole.

Jones wrote:

But the long-standing problem with all Trek movies is that you have these huge above-the-line costs for the big cast of actors before you even get to make the movie.  Very tough to make the kind of profits today's shareholders are expecting/demanding.

This is definitely an issue, particularly with both Star Trek and Mission: Impossible at Paramount. Why in the hell they have Bad Robot AND Skydance producing all of these movies together is beyond me. It should be one or the other. That's way too many producers taking checks right out of the gate and that's not even counting the regular Paramount producers and Trek folks too.

They really need to broom a lot of the needless above-the-line folks attached to these things if they want to make them affordable. Cruise aside, there's no one in the Trek or M:I casts that command huge fees, so the actors aren't the problem. It's 100% the producers.

Mondguy wrote:

I always thought Guy Pearce's "Mandarin" was a clever subversion by him using a proxy of what people expected a terrorist to look like.

I'm so glad Orci committed career suicide.  What an entitled, arrogant asshole.

I’m so curious about what exactly put him in Hollywood exile. There’s been rumors like him making threatening phone calls to directors that were on the studio shortlist for BEYOND but I don’t think that was ever confirmed.