Star Trek (2025 Prequel film directed by Toby Haynes)

[Giftheck 917]

We're getting a Kelvin Timeline prequel

 

https://deadline.com/2024/01/andor-toby-haynes-star-trek-movie-seth-grahame-smith-writing-1235712646/

 

Star Trek 14, which is now being considered the finale to the Kelvin films, is still in development.

[Gabriel Bezerra 303]

1 hour ago, Giftheck said:

Kelvin Timeline prequel

How does that make sense?

[Tallguy 3,402]

9 minutes ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:

How does that make sense?

 

I'm not saying they won't do something REALLY stupid, but anything from Kirk's birth onward could be in the Kelvin timeline.

 

What cracks me up is the emphasis on "ORIGIN STORY". I thought '09 was a freaking origin story?

 

Of course the other issue going back to '09 is "How did they all meet?" They're in Space Navy! Most of them met when they got the same assignment! Even in SNW people are meeting onesie twosie as you would expect.

 

I would love to see Pine as Kirk again. (I just realized that he's only two years older than SNW's Paul Wesley. And both of them are older than Shatner was in TOS.) But I'd also love to see the Kelvin cast in a really GREAT Star Trek movie. I'm not holding my breath.

 

I have no doubt a new Star Trek movie will happen someday. But until they have people in front of cameras? I'm not believing any of it.

[Tom Guernsey 2,287]

11 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

I'm not saying they won't do something REALLY stupid, but anything from Kirk's birth onward could be in the Kelvin timeline.

 

What cracks me up is the emphasis on "ORIGIN STORY". I thought '09 was a freaking origin story?

 

Of course the other issue going back to '09 is "How did they all meet?" They're in Space Navy! Most of them met when they got the same assignment! Even in SNW people are meeting onesie twosie as you would expect.

 

I would love to see Pine as Kirk again. (I just realized that he's only two years older than SNW's Paul Wesley. And both of them are older than Shatner was in TOS.) But I'd also love to see the Kelvin cast in a really GREAT Star Trek movie. I'm not holding my breath.

 

I have no doubt a new Star Trek movie will happen someday. But until they have people in front of cameras? I'm not believing any of it.

It'll be "Kids! In! Space!" and they'll all be very special students... prodigies, if you will... they could call it something like "Star Trek: Exceptional Qualities" or something. Maybe make it CGI? Just stabbing in the dark with ideas here.

[Edmilson 7,475]

Sometimes I cannot fathom the idiocy and complete ineptitude of Hollywood execs. 

 

They kept insisting on this Kelvin movies for years trying to turn them into Star Wars-like hits, despite the Beyond flop. So, after almost 10 years trying, what are their best idea to revive a failed franchise that almost nobody cares about? A prequel!

 

And lol at people still insisting on hiring Seth Grahaeme-Smith to write their screenplays for big budget movies. Dude might have been associated with movies that didn't happen more than anyone in Hollywood.

[Tallguy 3,402]

19 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

It'll be "Kids! In! Space!" and they'll all be very special students... prodigies, if you will... they could call it something like "Star Trek: Exceptional Qualities" or something. Maybe make it CGI? Just stabbing in the dark with ideas here.

 

BTW: Prodigy is really good. Now on Netflix.

[Tom Guernsey 2,287]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

 

BTW: Prodigy is really good. Now on Netflix.

It very much is. I binged watched it in the last week it was on paramount but glad it’s found a new home.  

[Gabriel Bezerra 303]

2 hours ago, Tallguy said:

I'm not saying they won't do something REALLY stupid, but anything from Kirk's birth onward could be in the Kelvin timeline.

If not about the TOS crew... then the only alternative for "origin" that come to mind is the militarization of Starfleet... but I don't want to see that.

 

Kelvin's Discovery... Kelvin's Strange New Worlds...

[Badzeee 110]

4 hours ago, Giftheck said:

We're getting a Kelvin Timeline prequel

 

https://deadline.com/2024/01/andor-toby-haynes-star-trek-movie-seth-grahame-smith-writing-1235712646/

 

Star Trek 14, which is now being considered the finale to the Kelvin films, is still in development.

 

Really...?

 

I got nuthin'...

 

Why are they so obsessed with prequels? 

[Tallguy 3,402]

Star Trek 4: A Scotty Story.

[Schilkeman 964]

On 11/01/2024 at 9:53 AM, Edmilson said:

So, after almost 10 years trying, what are their best idea to revive a failed franchise that almost nobody cares about? A prequel!

Star Trek will never be meaningful or relevant again until it returns to looking forward rather than backward. Star Trek is not about the lore, though that is the stereotype of Trekkies. It's an ideas franchise, with its own philosophical ethos. I long to see the next Next Generation.

[Giftheck 917]

The Star Trek Prequel film is going ahead, aiming to release for next year. Filming starts later this year.

 

Source

[Tallguy 3,402]

49 minutes ago, Giftheck said:

The Star Trek Prequel film is going ahead, aiming to release for next year. Filming starts later this year.

 

Source

 

Toby "Andor" Haynes is directing. I have no idea what they mean by "origin" story. Captain Archer? Zephram Cochrane and WWIII? Surak?!?

[Edmilson 7,475]

Me seeing Paramount still trying everything to make the Kelvin films happen:

 

[Tallguy 3,402]

37 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Me seeing Paramount still trying everything to make the Kelvin films happen:

 

I think most franchises (including Star Trek) would love to "not happen" as much as 09 and Into Darkness. STID may not be my cup of tea but it did well at the box office.

 

But what do I know? I liked Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.

[Edmilson 7,475]

18 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

STID may not be my cup of tea but it did well at the box office.

Quite the opposite: it had such a disappointing performance at the box office that we didn't get new Trek movies over the last, what, 8 years (!).

 

According with The Numbers, STB did $159 million at the US box office and $177m internationally, resulting in $335m worldwide. Those wouldn't be bad numbers... had the movie not been so expensive: at the cost of $185m, it should've grossed almost $600m just to be profitable, something that no Trek movie had ever done (of course, there's inflation and everything, ticket prices being cheaper in the 70s, 80s and 90s, etc).

 

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Star-Trek-Beyond#tab=summary

 

Anyway, with the Kelvin movies I'd say the only "unquestionable" success is the 2009 reboot. It was a massive hit in the US and, sure, despite not being theoretically lucrative by most standards ($140m budget/$386m worldwide box office), it energized and revitalized the brand in a way that made people excited about it again, which meant the sequels would only go higher. The same thing happened just a few years before with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (a $357m reboot that spawned a $1 billion grossing sequel).

 

Also, it was 2009 and a movie could make up for a "disappoiting" box office by selling DVDs and Blu-Rays, etc, which ST did. These days you have to depend solely on your own streaming service and its capacity to draw subscribers to pay the bills for every movie and TV show there. Begins itself sold lots and lots of units in home video, which made WB confident enough to greenlit an even more expensive sequel.

 

Paramount was hoping Into Darkness was going to be their own The Dark Knight. I mean, quite literally lol:

 

 

Aka the "darker" sequel featuring a "disturbing" impersonation of the franchise's most recognizable villain, this time played by a promising actor, etc.

 

And it did decently at the box office, or at least the international one. It was the first and the last time a Trek movie grossed over $200m outside of the US/Canada. Yeah, kinda like Ghostbusters this franchise was never that popular for non-North Americans.

 

However, it did gross less than 09 in the US. So it had an okay performance at the box office ($467m on a $190m budget) but fan response was mixed at the best so they had to try a different approach for Beyond: less "dark and disturbing", more fun space adventures. But, as we've seen, it didn't work.

 

The reason I don't really quite believe in this prequel making money is that 8 years have passed since the last movie which didn't click with audiences and fans. Actually, by 2025 it'll be 16 years since the last well received Trek movie. Paramount can only hope that:

 

a- There is some kind of nostalgia for these Kelvin movies, people who were kids back then, etc;

b- The countless Trek shows on streaming made people remember why they loved this franchise in the first place and are now willing to give it another chance for a movie;

c- The fact that is a prequel makes it somewhat unconnected to the previous movies for most audiences and thus they would enjoy it as its own thing instead of part of a trilogy they didn't care.

 

No matter what happens, what kind of tone they try (either dark and epic or fun and swashbuckling) Paramount can't seem to turn Trek into their own Star Wars. 

[Tallguy 3,402]

15 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Quite the opposite: it had such a disappointing performance at the box office that we didn't get new Trek movies over the last, what, 8 years (!).

 

STID: Star Trek Into Darkness. Popular enough to get a sequel. Beyond was the (good) movie that tanked Star Trek.

[A. A. Ron 1,744]

Yeah I disagree that Beyond “didn’t click with fans.” I think most people waited for it to stream, but the fans who actually saw it, generally seem to have liked it.

[Edmilson 7,475]

My point still stands: it is a risky franchise that never saw huge numbers at the box office. Paramount's desperate attempts at finding franchises to satisfy their shareholders may only result in them losing even more money.

 

If they want a lucrative success, why instead of spending $200 million they don't produce a ST movie for, like, $80-90 million? It'll be easier to be profitable, you won't have to reach numbers that no Trek got before just to break even. Also, you don't need massive budgets to make a competent ST movie that will make fans happy, especially because grandiose action scenes that theoretically would require a lot of money was never what Trek fans love about the franchise anyway.

[HunterTech 994]

Having finally gotten to watch the remaining Kelvin movies recently after only having had Beyond under my belt prior: yeah, making a prequel makes absolutely no sense as the next step. Maybe they ought to wait and see how the proper follow up pans out first (even if it'll definitely be a pain to not have Chekov there anymore (RIP Anton)).

[Giftheck 917]

Wouldn't this just be a 'prequel', and not a 'prequel to the Kelvin films' given it's supposed to take place decades before? Therefore, it'd be a prequel to all Star Trek series bar Enterprise.

[mrbellamy 6,298]

I almost had a heart attack thinking that said "Todd Haynes"

[GerateWohl 4,385]

On 11/01/2024 at 3:36 PM, Tom Guernsey said:

It'll be "Kids! In! Space!" and they'll all be very special students... prodigies, if you will... they could call it something like "Star Trek: Exceptional Qualities" or something. Maybe make it CGI? Just stabbing in the dark with ideas here.

Something like that?

[Jurassic Shark 12,097]

My daughter found it kind of meh.

[GerateWohl 4,385]

Was the first time in Star Wars that I had a kind of "don't try this at home" thought, wondering how these little kids manage at their training not to permanently cut of eahothers extrimeties by accident with their lightsabers.

[Badzeee 110]

Is a "Star Trek origin story" when they invented replicators and created the land of plenty? 

 

Or maybe it's the Earth vs Romulans war. 

 

Or the launch of the Federation? 

 

All are terrible ideas... don't explain the backstory. 

 

Of all the things Star Trek doesn't need, it's an origin story. If this turns out to be an amazing film, I'll happily eat my hat, but it sounds like the idea absolutely no-one was hoping to see.  

 

Enterprise effectively worked as a prequel (as opposed to "origin") but I'd really like to know what the thinking is, in Hollywood terms.  

[Pellaeon 593]

Enterprise-as-a-Kelvin-movie. Humanity’s first submarine-in-space. Spend some time on Vulcan. They unite against a common foe. That’s all I’ve got.

[A. A. Ron 1,744]

I don’t think any of those ideas are necessarily bad ideas, but I do think Paramount tends to hand Star Trek projects to the wrong people.

[Tallguy 3,402]

This could be funny. The Kelvin timeline was a kind of "eat your cake and have it" so they could say "No! We didn't get rid of classic Trek! Or TNG! It's ALL there. Just in another timeline!"

 

Well, if you go to before the Kelvin then that has to be Star Trek: Enterprise. (Or some time after.) Right where we left it. Right?

[Badzeee 110]

I guess they could set it before ST: Enterprise. I dunno why they'd want to do that, although that's when the "invention of replicator tech" story could take place. That's potentially a super-interesting, dramatic SF story, but not one that necessarily needs telling in the context of a Star Trek movie. That is, I don't see how that's going to appeal to mass audiences. 

 

This is, perhaps, the magic of Hollywood, however. Lead into gold, and all that.

 

6 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

I don’t think any of those ideas are necessarily bad ideas, but I do think Paramount tends to hand Star Trek projects to the wrong people.

 

Initially, I had hugely mixed feelings about the whole Kurtzman-era of Star Trek. It's the same brand, superficially, and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't enjoyed some of it (most of Strange New Worlds and Prodigy), but much of the rest of it I find virtually unrecognisable as Star Trek. 

 

These days, I come at any new Trek project as if a new creative team has been assigned to a fave comic book - see what they do with the tropes, how they handle classic characters, that sort of thing. It absolves me of me having to have any strong feelings about it one way or another, and I can happily enjoy all the ST shows I loved in my youth. 

 

None of which doesn't make me wish sometimes they'd just boldly go, exploring new SF ideas and the human condition, instead of endlessly rehashing the mythology. 

[Tallguy 3,402]

6 hours ago, Badzeee said:

These days, I come at any new Trek project as if a new creative team has been assigned to a fave comic book - see what they do with the tropes, how they handle classic characters, that sort of thing. It absolves me of me having to have any strong feelings about it one way or another, and I can happily enjoy all the ST shows I loved in my youth. 

 

That's not a bad take.

 

6 hours ago, Badzeee said:

I guess they could set it before ST: Enterprise.

 

That puts them right into James Cromwell territory. Best of luck!

[Tom Guernsey 2,287]

I’ll watch it because it’s Star Trek and if it’s good then I’ll be happy.

 

The thing is, origin stories for certain aspects of Star Trek mythology would almost certainly be better as flashback episodes of shows set in TNG and beyond era. Even if the reason for the flashback was a bit cheesy… some “contemporary” issue where the origin provides a parallel that informs the “present” being the most obvious approach. Or time travel. Or a long lived alien they encounter. Or whatever someone with more imagination than me can think of. 

 

That way you get little glimpses of the history of the Star Trek universe without it being  the sole reason for the show or film’s existence. I mean First Contact effectively did that with the first warp flight and meeting the Vulcans. It didn’t need to be an entire show or film set in that era (ie with a brand new cast). 

[Pellaeon 593]

No “Star Trek prequel” will ever top Forbidden Planet, an aesthetic masterpiece.