After years of false starts and potential projects, it looks as though Paramount has figured out where it wants to take its Star Trek film franchise, and has brought in Star Trek: Discovery writer Kalinda Vazquez to pen the script.
While CBS’s revitalized TV franchise has been taking off with the likes of Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, and a bunch of other spinoffs, the film franchise has floundered a bit in recent years. The last big film hit theaters in 2016 with Justin Lin’s Star Trek Beyond, which followed J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness. Since then, a fourth “Kelvin Universe” film has eluded the franchise, in part because Paramount wasn’t willing to pay for the salary increases that stars Chrises Pine and Hemsworth were asking for.
Buy the Book
Fugitive Telemetry
They had signed on for a fourth film—to be directed by director S.J. Clarkson (who would have been the first woman to direct a Trek film), but that project was eventually shelved. Quentin Tarantino had an idea that he brought to Paramount, which also seems to have been in a bit of limbo. And finally, Legion‘s Noah Hawley was brought on to direct a fourth film in 2019, which reportedly would have followed a new crew tackling a deadly virus.
But a year later, Paramount hadn’t moved forward on that, and had reportedly put the franchise in a bit of a holding pattern while its leaders worked to figure out what direction to take things in after a change in leadership at the company. Paramount hired former 20th Century Fox president Emma Watts to head up its movie division, and her main priority was to overhaul the plans for Trek. That’s no small concern: Paramount seems to be positioning Star Trek as its dominant franchise for its streaming service, and it’s up against heavy hitters like Disney, which has Star Wars.
Amidst all that, it looks like they’ve figured out what to do next—throw out the other projects and start anew. Vazquez has an extensive record in television so far: She was a producer on Once Upon a Time, Hulu’s Runaways, Fear the Walking Dead, and Star Trek: Discovery (and wrote for many of those projects as well), as well as the recently-announced George R.R. Martin series, Roadmarks. Deadline reports that her project is an “original move that she hatched, one that expands her role in the Trek universe.”
J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot studios will produce the film. It’s early in the development for the project, so we don’t know who’ll be directing, or even if it will be set in the Kelvin Timeline that Abrams set up back in 2009.
There was a time, decades ago, when I felt a rush of adrenaline and great anticipation at the news of an upcoming Star Trek film. Now it’s just dread and despondency.
Another reboot? Oy. OTOH, if it doesn’t have zombie tribbles and doesn’t do Khan it might be worth watching.
I have to say, the choice of image to head the article was inspired.
I would love an optimistic and hopeful Trek movie. One that’s fun and adventuresome and not overly brooding. Is that too much to ask? (For what it’s worth, I somewhat enjoyed Beyond!)
I feel like they’re doing really well with streaming and we really don’t need this, but if they are going to do this anyway, then fine. But please for the love of glob stop giving this stuff to JJ Abrams.
Fighting a deadly virus, boy did that idea age like milk in the sun!
@1 Yup, same. None of the last few Trek projects, not even Picard, have managed feel like Star Trek so I have no expectation this will either; nor inclination to watch it.
After suffering though ST:D, Picard and Lower Decks *ugh* my expectations are verrrrry low for any further Trek properties. I will always hope that they can recapture the magic, but this project being headed by a Discovery writer would seem to indicate that they won’t.
My observation is that NO newly made Trek “feels like Star Trek” until time passes. I well remember the complaints about TNG and DS9, which, in retrospect, didn’t hold up. I think the complaints about ENTERPRISE and the 2009 reboot hold up a bit better (though I still quite like BEYOND).
@1 Most of us who were alive during the original series on TV burned out on TREK many years ago. We went fron Trekkies to angry boomers who gave up from one too many cynical cash grabs by the franchise owners. I imagine those who came to TREK through the Kelvin movies are feeling the same thing.
I’ll believe it the first day cameras roll.
@@@@@8: The tragedy of Lower Decks is that the seeds of a decent animated series are there, if they just took the “wackiness” down a notch, fired Mariner properly [because I loathe the military nepotism trope], and hired some decent animators. It could have been, adequate if they’d just not gone so deep into the well of outright stupidity. What we got though was stuff that even the Futurama crew would find dumb by comparison.
As our own @krad says, Star Trek is a much better fit as a TV series. Not really looking forward to a new movie.
I wish her all the best.
As for Trek movies, well, they’ve been a mixed bag to put it mildly. I kind of dug Beyond, even though it featured yet another villain out for revenge. Could we take a break from those plots? How about something where the crew has to solve an interstellar mystery? But please no angels, time crystals, mushrooms, burns or whatever other terms they’re using over at the Discovery Holistic Fantasy Candle Shop and Drama Theater. Make it a science fiction problem we might recognize. Please.
There’s a trope among Warhammer 40,000 fans that it happens in the same fictional universe as Star Trek. It’s what would/will happen once all the good intentions and hopes of original ST are proven false and the true horrors of deep space settle in.
The way current series are written it’d seem CBS/Paramount are intent into turning that joke into reality. If this trend continues, with Starfleet officers happily disintegrating workers from establishments they robbed from and high-fiving on their kill count, and Starfleet itself turned into the place torturers dream of working for, we may expect in the not too distant future the Federation converted into a fully Fascist dictatorship almost indistinguishable from the Terran Empire.
Maybe its name will even change. Maybe to Imperium of Man.
The Emperor protects!
I haven’t felt excited by a Star Trek movie in a long time, really that would be Star Trek (2009) because it had been a long time since the previous one, it was a reboot, it was a new fresh young cast, and they threw a big budget at it. But the following two films I saw more out of a sense of obligation as a fan than anything else. I felt empty coming out of Into Darkness. And with Beyond I felt no enthusiasm going into it and I just felt “meh” coming out of it. It just seemed low stakes and not a good move to be stranded on a planet for most of the movie. So I think the next film should be high stakes, take place in space, be a fresh new cast, not a reboot, and preferably take place in the Prime Universe.
The 2009 movie’s big mistake, the thing that crippled it right out the gates, was making it a reboot. If they’d just set it in the same timeline with a new crew, none of this prequel-reboot stuff, then it would have had a much easier ride. The preBoot created needless division right from the off though.
@17: Yes, but part of the curiosity factor with the reboot was seeing how this new cast would embody or do impressions of already iconic characters. And it did drive a lot of people to the theaters to see a young attractive cast do this. So from a marketing standpoint it worked and the cast overall did a great job. While it may not have been my preference for a reboot and a different timeline, the recognition factor did play a part in generating a lot of buzz and business that wouldn’t have been there for brand new characters that no one had ever heard of before. Now if they did a new movie with brand new characters it would be a different story if they cast a bunch of A-list actors that drive people to the theaters.
To all doubters, cynics and other gadflies: I BELIEVE. Ladies, Gentlemen and fans of every other description, I believe that we must go boldly into the strange new production or sit scowling at another BLADE RUNNER clone, wondering when & why Science Fiction started looking less like the unthinkable and more like an unusually weird day at the office.
So when all of you hear the Fat Lady practicing her scales REMEMBER – you can’t have a decent Space Opera without a valkyrie!
On a less surreal note, I can only say that I have enjoyed every recent STAR TREK production – I do not always agree with its slant on the Galaxy into which our old friends & acquaintances have been going boldly for lo these many years, but I have never yet regretted watching a one of the new kids on the block.
I am pleased to accept that others may not feel the same, yet it seems only fair to add a verse to the chorus (I hope & trust a growing chorus) who are pleased to receive new STAR TREK, to help balance out the negativity that marks so many of the remarks above and thereby contribute a little (though one hopes not too pettily) to IDIC.
Best Wishes to this latest STAR TREK and to all that sail in her!
@17 and @18,
Also, you have to look at the reboot from Paramount’s perspective — i.e. a business perspective.
It’s theirs. They own it and the franchise is one of the crown jewels of their multimedia empire…and they’d run into the ground.
ENT and Nemesis had both flopped in then-recent years. Paramount then lost the TV rights after the Viacom-CBS split in 2006 and only had the film rights. Fan disinterest was high and the mythology was making it impossible to bring casual viewers aboard.
So, I really can’t fault them for trying something desperate like a reboot to bring in new audiences and revitalize their IP.
And to be honest, I actually liked the basic idea of a reboot — of taking 40 years of mythology, streamlining it, and rebuilding it knowing what had and hadn’t worked. Plus, with all the Multiverse and Time Travel built into Trek, we knew coming back to the Prime Reality was easily doable at some point down the road.
Of course, then Into Darkness happened, but that’s a grousing for another time.
@18
But do A-list actors still drive people to theaters? (I seem to remember what those things are…) I mean, you would think an epic sci-fi adventure with Brad Pitt searching for Tommy Lee Jones would be a surefire hit, but Ad Astra was a flop. First Man didn’t do so hot either.
I think novelty is the main driving force these days. But then maybe it always was. Whether it’s young new actors playing iconic roles or a familiar movie star in an unusual situation, that’s the best bet to take in my opinion.
@22: I think having an A-lister will get the film attention and publicity but won’t necessarily be a draw for the majority of the public. I don’t really think Brad Pitt is a draw anymore despite also being an A-lister and definitely a talented actor. I think someone who is both an A-lister and a draw would be Leonardo DiCaprio. I really can’t think of too many other examples. Maybe Ryan Reynolds?
@22 and @23,
Yeah, I agree having high-profile talent would get some attention, but it wouldn’t be enough of a draw.
All the preceding three cinematic eras of Trek had their own distinct draws.
With the 6 TOS films, the main draw was the franchise rising like a phoenix from the ashes a decade after cancellation and chronicling new voyagers with the beloved characters.
It was the same with the 4 TNG films to an extent with the show having ended its run.
With the 3 Kelvin Timeline films, it was a return of the TOS characters 20 years after the end of their voyages. It was a chance to introduce a new generation to the bedrock of the franchise and the first new Trek content in nearly half a decade.
But with future films? Damned if I know what the draw will be there.
I hope they don’t get big names. The JJverse had big names, and the films kept running into casting and filming problems because all of them have other movies and projects to go to. The TOS movies though; Trek was Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, et al’s main gig. If there was a filming conflict then mostly what they did was drop the other project and head on over to the Paramount lot. The result was that, V aside, we got a run of fantastic and fairly consistent Trek movies. Even the TNG movies, while they kinda petered out [because, IMO, they went into them too quickly and were foolish enough to ditch the Big-D too soon], were Stewart and Spiner’s main gigs.
Stick with talented actors who can commit to Trek rather than anything else.
Remains to be seen how this turns out. If I had a vote, I’d say no to more Kelvin stories. And I hope the Tarantino is well and truly dead. I don’t want to see Pulp Fiction in Space.
A brand new crew, setting, or time era would be risky though. It’s like asking for lightning in a bottle. But I would respect the attempt and watch that.
If they make it, I will watch it. With one exception: if they let that hack violence porn maker Tarantino anywhere near it, I will walk away and never watch anything Trek again.
You took the words right out of my, er, keyboard.
I feel obliged to point out that the two Chrises didn’t want a pay rise, they insisted on being paid the fee that the studio had already agreed to and contracted them at, rather than taking a requested pay cut.
@24: The draw for future films would be a stand alone film featuring rising and established talent in front of and behind the camera and an original story but one that’s been very hush hush and not spoiled before the release of the film. This will keep a buzz of intrigue and mystery.
Even the TNG movies, while they kinda petered out [because, IMO, they went into them too quickly and were foolish enough to ditch the Big-D too soon], were Stewart and Spiner’s main gigs.
As I understand it, ditching the 1701-D that early was a necessary evil from a production standpoint. The TNG sets were built for a then-lower TV resolution rather than the higher-resolution of Film.
That’s why GEN had all that weird, dark lighting for the 1701-D scenes: It was done to hide the flaws that would’ve been apparent with normal cinematography.
Indeed, the Blu Ray upscale of TNG shows those concerns were justified (ex. visible duct tape on the LCARS panels that didn’t show up in the SD episodes).
On top of that, remember also that VOY was about to start shooting its first Season once filming wrapped on GEN. For budgetary reasons, it was going to inherit the sets (which TNG had in turn inherited from the TOS films) and overhaul them nearly from scratch. They couldn’t just put them into storage like they did with the 1701-E sets in-between filming.
The draw for future films would be a stand alone film featuring rising and established talent in front of and behind the camera and an original story but one that’s been very hush hush and not spoiled before the release of the film. This will keep a buzz of intrigue and mystery.
True, but Paramount has more of a financial stake in the films than the TV shows.
Unless it’s more TOS/Kelvin (or even TNG-oriented), I can’t see them green-lighting a new stand-alone non-TOS project. Not enough risk/reward.