• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
Franchise fatigue is a myth. JAG/NCIS has been on the air since 1995 and has produced over 1000 episodes so far. The Law & Order franchise has been in the air since 1990, also 1000+ episodes. The Chicago franchise since 2012 and in those few years they've pumped out 450 episodes over 4 series, 3 of which are still running.
Calling it franchise fatigue implies there was nothing that could have been done, the audience was just not interested anymore but Enterprise just wasn't a very good show and the new blood in season 4 definitely didn't help, the show became more interesting for long time fans due to all the TOS and TNG references they did but there was no way this would attract a bigger audience. I still think season 4 was the worst season of Enterprise because for all its flaws at least the first seasons weren't just fan wank, by season 4 the writers had given up and didn't even try to do a show with its own identity anymore.
Look at what the CW would evolve into though. Star Trek didn't really have a place on that network anyway unless they really did do a Starfleet Academy sexy hot teen drama show that would be cheap(ish) to produce and didn't require new sets every week.

That said, I do agree that Enterprise was just Berman and Braga at their worst and I really hate the Coto season even though it's the season that fans seem to love. No one needed to know about Klingon head ridges except nerds like us, and even then, I didn't really care. lol
 

StevieP

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,276
I saw some rumors floating about that Archer was coming back to some series but it was from those unreliable sites

Could be a McCoy style handoff there. Pay attention to Bakula's social media to see if he's in Toronto I guess!

Anyone who says s1/2 of Ent are better than s4 are smoking some hard stuff. But maybe they have decontamination and bat capture dreams.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,618
Disco had that disco...song lol Staying alive was it? But yeah it's kind of annoying how there is just a massive lack of any kind of 'recent' media in any star trek. It's all 1930s or before.
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
Disco had that disco...song lol Staying alive was it? But yeah it's kind of annoying how there is just a massive lack of any kind of 'recent' media in any star trek. It's all 1930s or before.
It's just like the movie night they had on DSC. Buster Keaton was incredibly talented, but apparently they forgot to disable the public domain lockout on the ship's computer. We know what the Prime Directive is, but the Secondary Directive must be "This Video is a copyrighted work and is intended for private viewing only. Any public performance is strictly prohibited".
 

chrominance

Sky Van Gogh
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,645
I would so much rather have "music stopped in the 18th century" than endure even a second of "B'Elanna gets Tom a TV that only plays 1950s Saturday morning cartoons!" or that terrible Sabotage scene in Star Trek: Beyond. Hell, I'd rather they make up stupid fake pop music from 2097 that we all cringe at than insert a bunch of contemporary pop culture references.

I realize this is a somewhat irrational stance.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
There's a Ron Moore interview talking about the new season of For All Mankind and the interesting tidbit is that he finds Star Trek overwhelming to follow now and isn't really as into the franchise anymore.

Interesting, he'd be more interested in getting into the Star Wars game, particularly since he's working for Disney now. I forgot he had worked on a live action Star Wars back when Lucas still owned the franchise too.
www.hollywoodreporter.com

‘TV’s Top 5’: ‘For All Mankind’ Creator Ron Moore on ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Battlestar Galactica’ and ‘Outlander’

During this week's podcast, hosts Daniel Fienberg and Lesley Goldberg discuss an early trend emerging from the broadcast networks and are joined by Jackie Strause to discuss 'The Bachelor' controversy.
 

Serebii

Serebii.net Webmaster
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
13,127
There's a Ron Moore interview talking about the new season of For All Mankind and the interesting tidbit is that he finds Star Trek overwhelming to follow now and isn't really as into the franchise anymore.

Interesting, he'd be more interested in getting into the Star Wars game, particularly since he's working for Disney now. I forgot he had worked on a live action Star Wars back when Lucas still owned the franchise too.
www.hollywoodreporter.com

‘TV’s Top 5’: ‘For All Mankind’ Creator Ron Moore on ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Battlestar Galactica’ and ‘Outlander’

During this week's podcast, hosts Daniel Fienberg and Lesley Goldberg discuss an early trend emerging from the broadcast networks and are joined by Jackie Strause to discuss 'The Bachelor' controversy.
Has anyone told him how many Star Wars shows are in the works?
 

Serebii

Serebii.net Webmaster
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
13,127
Yes, his reasoning was that it's still relatively easy to watch all of the movies.

I think he doesn't realize that the cartoons are now actually in the mix now. lol
Easy to watch all the Star Trek movies too...there's only what, 2 more Star Trek movies than Star Wars movies?

I mean he has a bit of a point

79 TOS episodes
178 TNG episodes
176 DS9 episodes
172 VOY episodes
98 ENT episodes
42 DIS episodes
10 PIC episodes
10 LD episodes
13 movies

That's a lot to get on board with. Even though Star Wars has 10 shows in the works, they still won't top that amount of content in sheer volume any time soon
 

Quinton

Specialist at TheGamer / Reviewer at RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
17,286
Midgar, With Love
There's a Ron Moore interview talking about the new season of For All Mankind and the interesting tidbit is that he finds Star Trek overwhelming to follow now and isn't really as into the franchise anymore.

Interesting, he'd be more interested in getting into the Star Wars game, particularly since he's working for Disney now. I forgot he had worked on a live action Star Wars back when Lucas still owned the franchise too.
www.hollywoodreporter.com

‘TV’s Top 5’: ‘For All Mankind’ Creator Ron Moore on ‘Star Wars,’ ‘Battlestar Galactica’ and ‘Outlander’

During this week's podcast, hosts Daniel Fienberg and Lesley Goldberg discuss an early trend emerging from the broadcast networks and are joined by Jackie Strause to discuss 'The Bachelor' controversy.

That seems like an odd critique from Moore. Maybe he just doesn't want to outright say he isn't into the new shows in general.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
That seems like an odd critique from Moore. Maybe he just doesn't want to outright say he isn't into the new shows in general.
It wasn't really a critique. The question was along the lines of whether he'd be interested in doing another Trek show and he just said he was a casual fan now and didn't feel like he'd be able to catch up to write something in the franchise these days.

I guess the other scifi related tidbit is that he has no idea what will happen in the new BSG other than being told it wasn't going to be a reboot.

The Trek shows are largely self-contained within their own premises?
So far the only Trek show that hasn't mattered in "modern" Trek is DS9 actually. Every other show has been referenced in one of the new shows one way or another.
But technically, it doesn't really matter I suppose.

Easy to watch all the Star Trek movies too...there's only what, 2 more Star Trek movies than Star Wars movies?

I mean he has a bit of a point

79 TOS episodes
178 TNG episodes
176 DS9 episodes
172 VOY episodes
98 ENT episodes
42 DIS episodes
10 PIC episodes
10 LD episodes
13 movies

That's a lot to get on board with. Even though Star Wars has 10 shows in the works, they still won't top that amount of content in sheer volume any time soon
With Star Wars to even follow Mando you have to watch the two cartoon shows now. It's not quite Star Trek level, but yeah. lol
 

GalaxyDive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,669
That said, I do agree that Enterprise was just Berman and Braga at their worst and I really hate the Coto season even though it's the season that fans seem to love. No one needed to know about Klingon head ridges except nerds like us, and even then, I didn't really care. lol
Should have just left it at DS9's explanation. Every little visual inconsistency from a 1960s TV series doesn't need to be explained 30+ years later.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
Should have just left it at DS9's explanation. Every little visual inconsistency from a 1960s TV series doesn't need to be explained 30+ years later.
Yeah. Even things like bringing on a Soong just did the Star Wars thing of making the galaxy seem incredibly small.

Although I suppose at least we didn't get the proposed Shatner cameo because Shatner wanted too much money. lol
I don't know if that was Berman/Braga or Coto though.

Yeah it is definitely getting there
And if they're actually serious about all the crap from other media being canon, it'll be a mess soon enough. If Moore does get a chance to run a Star Wars series, he'll be surprised. lol
 

Pluto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,458
Yes, his reasoning was that it's still relatively easy to watch all of the movies.

I think he doesn't realize that the cartoons are now actually in the mix now. lol
Sure, if he removes most of the content it's easy to follow what's left.🤷🏼‍♂️

Easy to watch all the Star Trek movies too...there's only what, 2 more Star Trek movies than Star Wars movies?

I mean he has a bit of a point

79 TOS episodes
178 TNG episodes
176 DS9 episodes
172 VOY episodes
98 ENT episodes
42 DIS episodes
10 PIC episodes
10 LD episodes
13 movies
Well ...

13 Droids episodes
26 Ewoks episodes
133 Clone Wars episodes
75 Rebels episodes
40 Resistance episodes
16 Mandalorian episodes
12 movies

It hasn't reached Star Trek levels yet but it's working on it and of course for Star Wars the current novels and comics are canon too, so current Star Wars is definitely not easier to follow than current Star Trek.
I think it's actually easier to do Star Trek because the modern shows mostly reference 60s to 90s trek and not each other. Star Wars is almost exclusively focused on the same few decades in universe with new projects taking place in between other entries.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
Sure, if he removes most of the content it's easy to follow what's left.🤷🏼‍♂️


Well ...

13 Droids episodes
26 Ewoks episodes
133 Clone Wars episodes
75 Rebels episodes
40 Resistance episodes
16 Mandalorian episodes
12 movies

It hasn't reached Star Trek levels yet but it's working on it and of course for Star Wars the current novels and comics are canon too, so current Star Wars is definitely not easier to follow than current Star Trek.
I think it's actually easier to do Star Trek because the modern shows mostly reference 60s to 90s trek and not each other. Star Wars is almost exclusively focused on the same few decades in universe with new projects taking place in between other entries.

Are Droids and Ewoks canon? :p

It's also an interesting perspective for me coming from a person who is clearly a casual viewer of both franchises despite being able to write in both of them. Like maybe he was like most of the casual watchers of Mandalorian who still have no idea that there's a cartoon canon to worry about.
 

Mezentine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,977
I'm watching The Motion Picture for the first time in over a decade, and I think for the first time not on an old VHS, and holy shit this is genuinely gorgeous in a way I never understood before. Everything about the VGer structure is genuinely breathtaking, Star Trek just doesn't get to do megastructures like that often
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
I'm watching The Motion Picture for the first time in over a decade, and I think for the first time not on an old VHS, and holy shit this is genuinely gorgeous in a way I never understood before. Everything about the VGer structure is genuinely breathtaking, Star Trek just doesn't get to do megastructures like that often
IMO, Star Trek has never been more cinematic than TMP. There have been better movies, but TMP has a certain artistic flair that hasn't been matched in any other Trek movie.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
TMP was when it tried to be a response to 2001, but the other movies were essentially constrained by the fact that they had to be mid-budget affairs and, well, having Nimoy and Shatner direct two of the movies.
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
TMP was when it tried to be a response to 2001, but the other movies were essentially constrained by the fact that they had to be mid-budget affairs and, well, having Nimoy and Shatner direct two of the movies.
Star Trek II and III were basically produced like TV movies, from the sets, the budgets, the rented props, and even the film stock in the case of TWOK. IV kind of breaks away from that with a ton of location shooting. For all it's faults, V actually has some very nice shots, and the cinematography and lighting in that movie is pretty good.

VI goes back to the TV movie budget aesthetic, especially the use of TNG sets. The President's office which is Ten-Forward with some curtains gets me every time. Generations pretty much went for the look of TNG, but has some nice lighting when they're around the star that's going to go nova. Just like 2001 was for TMP, Intersteller would be the modern day touchstone for a truly cinematic Trek. I think Beyond reached for that in some of the shots, such as the ship at warp towards the beginning and entering Yorktown.

I really wish that we might get a Trek movie that reached for some of that TMP style artistry again though. As slow as that movie can be, it has a grandeur that has yet to be matched in another Trek movie. Space itself and what it contains should be a part of the spectacle, not just phasers and photon torpedoes.

Of course, I'm the type of weirdo who actually loves flying around the Enterprise for 10 minutes while Kirk gives the ship googly eyes.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
Star Trek II and III were basically produced like TV movies, from the sets, the budgets, the rented props, and even the film stock in the case of TWOK. IV kind of breaks away from that with a ton of location shooting. For all it's faults, V actually has some very nice shots, and the cinematography and lighting in that movie is pretty good.

VI goes back to the TV movie budget aesthetic, especially the use of TNG sets. The President's office which is Ten-Forward with some curtains gets me every time. Generations pretty much went for the look of TNG, but has some nice lighting when they're around the star that's going to go nova. Just like 2001 was for TMP, Intersteller would be the modern day touchstone for a truly cinematic Trek. I think Beyond reached for that in some of the shots, such as the ship at warp towards the beginning and entering Yorktown.

I really wish that we might get a Trek movie that reached for some of that TMP style artistry again though. As slow as that movie can be, it has a grandeur that has yet to be matched in another Trek movie. Space itself and what it contains should be a part of the spectacle, not just phasers and photon torpedoes.

Of course, I'm the type of weirdo who actually loves flying around the Enterprise for 10 minutes while Kirk gives the ship googly eyes.
I honestly don't think we'll get that kind of "thinky" science fiction out of Star Trek. Or at least I don't think the modern audience would be into that.
It doesn't even have to be big like Interstellar. For example, Arrival could basically be a Star Trek movie since the whole premise of the franchise is to "seek out new life and new civilizations", and just imagine if they had the budget to represent aliens who weren't just actors painted green with some plastic junk stuck on those noses?

But I also think Trek is trapped in that space where it really can't swing big with a high concept story like that these days. Particularly in the movie space where no one really wants to watch a Trek movie in 2021 now.
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
I honestly don't think we'll get that kind of "thinky" science fiction out of Star Trek. Or at least I don't think the modern audience would be into that.
It doesn't even have to be big like Interstellar. For example, Arrival could basically be a Star Trek movie since the whole premise of the franchise is to "seek out new life and new civilizations", and just imagine if they had the budget to represent aliens who weren't just actors painted green with some plastic junk stuck on those noses?

But I also think Trek is trapped in that space where it really can't swing big with a high concept story like that these days. Particularly in the movie space where no one really wants to watch a Trek movie in 2021 now.
I think there was a window of opportunity in 2009 to do something like that, if Paramount had found the right filmmaker.

That said, I wouldn't be too heartbroken if we never got another movie. Trek is at it's best on TV. The TOS movies (and the TNG movies to a much lesser extent) worked because we'd had years watching them on their series. It's why none of the movies that were being developed with all new characters and settings got off the ground. I would love to see it tried one day, but I also understand why it probably won't ever happen.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
I think there was a window of opportunity in 2009 to do something like that, if Paramount had found the right filmmaker.

That said, I wouldn't be too heartbroken if we never got another movie. Trek is at it's best on TV. The TOS movies (and the TNG movies to a much lesser extent) worked because we'd had years watching them on their series. It's why none of the movies that were being developed with all new characters and settings got off the ground. I would love to see it tried one day, but I also understand why it probably won't ever happen.
Yeah, and honestly I don't know if a Star Trek movie that was high concept and had nothing to do with the crew or didn't have ships firing photon torpedoes at each other would do well so maybe they're not wrong to avoid taking that risk. lol

4 will remain the wildest concept for a Trek movie, if you don't count Galaxy Quest.
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
Yeah, and honestly I don't know if a Star Trek movie that was high concept and had nothing to do with the crew or didn't have ships firing photon torpedoes at each other would do well so maybe they're not wrong to avoid taking that risk. lol

4 will remain the wildest concept for a Trek movie, if you don't count Galaxy Quest.
IV is the only movie without any form of a space battle! And yes, Galaxy Quest is absolutely a Trek movie. I also count Master and Commander as a distant prequel, and Forbidden Planet as a sidequel to Enterprise.

I think if they want to look at jump starting the movie side of things, they're going to have to look at an established TV crew to do it. The Discovery crew doesn't really have that mojo, Lower Decks isn't live action enough…but Strange New Worlds might have that "leap to the big screen" magic. I really dug Pike and company on S2 of DSC, and if Strange New Worlds is as good as I hope it can be, that might be the way to go. The show needs to be more TNG than DSC to make that work though. We'll see…hopefully sooner rather than later.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
IV is the only movie without any form of a space battle! And yes, Galaxy Quest is absolutely a Trek movie. I also count Master and Commander as a distant prequel, and Forbidden Planet as a sidequel to Enterprise.

I think if they want to look at jump starting the movie side of things, they're going to have to look at an established TV crew to do it. The Discovery crew doesn't really have that mojo, Lower Decks isn't live action enough…but Strange New Worlds might have that "leap to the big screen" magic. I really dug Pike and company on S2 of DSC, and if Strange New Worlds is as good as I hope it can be, that might be the way to go. The show needs to be more TNG than DSC to make that work though. We'll see…hopefully sooner rather than later.
The problem with the Pike is that you'd have to set the movie during his Enterprise time, which means you have all this baggage that prevents it from being a standalone thing like the other movies which were set after the TV show. It'd be a mess like the X-files movie, unless they really make it broad and have it not be in continuity.

The obvious story to do with Pike for a movie is how he gets into the chair. Although I suppose Star Trek 09 did that too. lol
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
The problem with the Pike is that you'd have to set the movie during his Enterprise time, which means you have all this baggage that prevents it from being a standalone thing like the other movies which were set after the TV show. It'd be a mess like the X-files movie, unless they really make it broad and have it not be in continuity.

The obvious story to do with Pike for a movie is how he gets into the chair. Although I suppose Star Trek 09 did that too. lol
You could do a trilogy of movies, starting with Pike taking command from April and facing a threat that forms a thread through the remaining movies. Movie two takes place around the mid point of his time aboard, basically just before the series starts and movie three is the conclusion of the story at the end of Pike's tour. He doesn't end up in the chair until well after Kirk takes command, so you don't have to end on a downer.

As for what that thread could be…skies the limit there. I'd go with some sort of ancient discovery (no pun intended). A race against time to get powerful ancient tech against, say, the Klingons. Lots of exploration, archeology, strange new worlds…and a chance for pew-pew space battles.

Alternatively, it could be first contact with a known later threat, like the Cardassians. We don't know when that actually happened, or what went down when it did.
 

The Namekian

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,877
New York City
The problem with the Pike is that you'd have to set the movie during his Enterprise time, which means you have all this baggage that prevents it from being a standalone thing like the other movies which were set after the TV show. It'd be a mess like the X-files movie, unless they really make it broad and have it not be in continuity.

The obvious story to do with Pike for a movie is how he gets into the chair. Although I suppose Star Trek 09 did that too. lol

I honestly think they will establish that its not the original universe early on
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
I honestly think they will establish that its not the original universe early on
I'm not sure why they would. The show runners have maintained from day one that all the CBSAA shows are in the "Prime" universe. If they did that just for the Pike series, it would make it less desirable for the audience and dampen cross-over opportunities between the shows. The chance for clean slate Star Trek was in 2009, but that was a really half-hearted attempt at a reboot, and the subsequent movies, with their nods towards Enterprise only confirmed that it existed in a branch of the continuity, not a brand new one.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
Discovery also already used clips from TOS to explicitly reference The Cage. And I think having different timelines doesn't make sense anymore now that it's all under one corporate umbrella again.

You could do a trilogy of movies, starting with Pike taking command from April and facing a threat that forms a thread through the remaining movies. Movie two takes place around the mid point of his time aboard, basically just before the series starts and movie three is the conclusion of the story at the end of Pike's tour. He doesn't end up in the chair until well after Kirk takes command, so you don't have to end on a downer.

As for what that thread could be…skies the limit there. I'd go with some sort of ancient discovery (no pun intended). A race against time to get powerful ancient tech against, say, the Klingons. Lots of exploration, archeology, strange new worlds…and a chance for pew-pew space battles.

Alternatively, it could be first contact with a known later threat, like the Cardassians. We don't know when that actually happened, or what went down when it did.
I think the problem is weaving in the movies with a TV show. The other show that had this problem was Agents of Shield, where it was clear that the TV show was a complete after thought and they finally just admitted that they should not reference the movies at all.

(Worse still were the Netflix shows saying things like "giant green man" or whatever).

If they committed to Pike movies, they could at least capitalize on the Enterprise name while having a relatively unknown cast. Or bring back Quinto for Spock if they wanted to just for the hell of it.

As for what the movies should be about, yeah, I honestly don't know. I'd like a basic scifi story, sure, but making that work for films is difficult because the natural inclination is to tell an adventure story. Even the TNG writers couldn't help themselves and basically wrote really boring movies for the big screen.
(Michael Pillar's concept being hijacked aside)
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
As for what the movies should be about, yeah, I honestly don't know. I'd like a basic scifi story, sure, but making that work for films is difficult because the natural inclination is to tell an adventure story. Even the TNG writers couldn't help themselves and basically wrote really boring movies for the big screen.
(Michael Pillar's concept being hijacked aside)
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the TNG movies, mainly because they had already told better stories on the series, and the action post FC felt small scale, considering what was happening on DS9.

The TOS movies sort of accidentally stumbled onto the perfect story thread for their movies: Kirk getting old and struggling with that. It's a throughline that's touched on in all the TOS movies and Generations. The TNG movies never really had that. There was Data's ongoing quest to be more human, starting with the emotion chip in Generations, but it always felt like the writers had to reset Data to the status quo somehow in each movie. It goes from being fused to his brain in GEN, to being able to turn it on and off in FC, to being able to take it out in INS, and finally forgetting it altogether in NEM. That should have been the emotional throughline for those movies, like Kirk aging was, but it was handled poorly.

It kind of felt like they were going for something similar in the Kelvin movies, with the story of Kirk growing into the captain's chair, but I hated the way that started, how he was just went from Cadet to Captain in a week. A more compelling story might be Kirk's adventures post-academy, pre-Enterprise. TOS did a pretty good job making Kirk a man with history, someone who had worked his way up through the ranks, had successes and failures, before he became captain. The Kelvinverse Kirk had none of that. It was his "fate" to be captain, so they made him one. It just feels wrong for the character and for Trek in general.

Maybe that could make for a compelling series of movies that don't directly involve characters we've seen before? Follow a Starfleet member through the years as they learn and fail and eventually become captain of a starship. Set it in the 23rd century so you can have supporting cast from the shows, but make that character the focus. Sort of like Harry Potter, but less wands and more space stuff.

EDIT: Orrrrr…more appropriately, it would be like the Horatio Hornblower series which of course was an inspiration for Kirk to begin with.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
It's funny, because I never thought of 2, 3 and 4 as a Kirk trilogy but it's true. He discovers he has a son, his son dies, and then he gets reborn as "Captain" Kirk.
And it even kind of ties into 6 as well and his Klingon racism stuff.

A Pike arc where, now that he knows how he will end up in the chair, eventually learns to accept his fate and how much it impacts his decisions could be interesting. But I don't know if that would need to be a TV arc either. lol

I guess it comes down to what identity you want the movies to have and whether they should be big and bombastic or not. Certainly for Star Wars, the existing TV shows seem to be going for more low-key personal affairs over the STAR KILLER JEDI PALPATINE stuff of the movies anyway.
 

GalaxyDive

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,669
Yeah, Star Trek has become an increasingly hard sell as a modern-day movie franchise. As has largely been said, the TOS movies worked thanks to generally modest budgets and a familiarity with characters that have history. The Kelvin movies arguably could have worked thanks to the familiar characters, but Into Darkness killed it by trying to do completely unearned things with them, while Beyond showed the limitations of what can be done with a "single movie adventure" format. The real chance was probably if Into Darkness's main villain was Admiral Space 9/11 and Khan was earned as a 2-3 movie arc villain. But, y'know, JJA is a hack etc.

And, I mean, thanks to Prestige TV, a lot of the current revival is more like Movie Trek than TV Trek now anyway.
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
Yup, 2, 3, and 4 are absolutely the Trek Trilogy, but Kirk's arc through the movies starts in TMP and goes through to Generations. This was mostly accidental, I think, but it works well.

In TMP, Kirk is still fairly young. It's not long after the five year mission, and he's now an Admiral. But he hates it. V'Ger comes along, and rather than him wishing Captain Dekker bon voyage, he essentially steals the ship from him. Kirk is an absolute dick to Dekker in that movie, and McCoy directly calls him out on it. Kirk's life had moved on from being a Captain, but he couldn't let it go. He has the command back at the end, but at what cost?

2-4, as you mentioned is pretty directly a trilogy, with Kirk reborn and reinvigorated as a Captain of a new Enterprise. That new energy carries directly over to 5. The first you see of Kirk, he's free climbing El Capitan, McCoy is watching him, grumbling about how stupid it is. We get Kirk musing about death around the campfire. He's accepted death as inevitable, but it's not real to him. He lost Spock, but got him back, but at the cost of his son. He's accepted the "no-win scenario"…but not his own death.

In 6, Kirk finally deals with the loss of his son. He's able to make peace with the Klingons, and at the same time, peace with the inevitable. He finally has to move on from being Captain of the Enterprise.

Then, in Generations, he has the chance to take command once again, but unlike in TMP, he doesn't take it. He lets Harriman be the captain, while he goes to save the ship, and "sacrifices" himself. Finally, the no win scenario was that he had to die to save the ship. He gets sucked into the Nexus, and we see Kirk at peace. He's out of Starfleet, married, chopping wood and making eggs. It's only when this punk kid Picard comes along and guilts him into action that he decides to come out of retirement one more time to save the day.

It's not the best write up, but that's how I see Kirk's arc through the movies. Probably the most complete character arc in all of Trek.
 

Cheerilee

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,969
It's funny, because I never thought of 2, 3 and 4 as a Kirk trilogy but it's true. He discovers he has a son, his son dies, and then he gets reborn as "Captain" Kirk.
And it even kind of ties into 6 as well and his Klingon racism stuff.
And then it almost ties into Generations.

Kirk is trapped in the Nexus and can have anything he wants. He fantasizes about a life lived differently, one where he settled down with Carol Marcus (and presumably became a father to David). Picard comes along and wakes Kirk up from that dream. Kirk: Yeah, you're right. I've already moved past this.

Paramount: No Ron Moore, you're not allowed to reference Carol Marcus as a character. Make it some random other girl-of-the-week who Kirk fucked a long time ago who we've never heard about. It won't have any emotional impact, but this way we won't have to pay the Star Trek 2 writer any royalties, so this is clearly the right move.
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
And then it almost ties into Generations.

Kirk is trapped in the Nexus and can have anything he wants. He fantasizes about a life lived differently, one where he settled down with Carol Marcus (and presumably became a father to David). Picard comes along and wakes Kirk up from that dream. Kirk: Yeah, you're right. I've already moved past this.

Paramount: No Ron Moore, you're not allowed to reference Carol Marcus as a character. Make it some random other girl-of-the-week who Kirk fucked a long time ago who we've never heard about. It won't have any emotional impact, but this way we won't have to pay the Star Trek 2 writer any royalties, so this is clearly the right move.
Antonia was Kirk's pet name for Carol. Lol…that's my retcon and I'm sticking to it.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
Wait, that was supposed to be Carol and they changed it to avoid paying royalties? That's as dumb as the Voyager Paris thing. lol

Honestly my favourite parts of V are the campfire scenes where he talks about his own mortality, so I suppose that works. I don't remember much about the middle of the movie. lol
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
Wait, that was supposed to be Carol and they changed it to avoid paying royalties? That's as dumb as the Voyager Paris thing. lol

Honestly my favourite parts of V are the campfire scenes where he talks about his own mortality, so I suppose that works. I don't remember much about the middle of the movie. lol
To be fair, the only other things that are memorable is the "secret pain" sequence with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy ("I need my pain"), "What does God need with a Starship", and the use of color and some of the cinematography. I mean, it's not a great movie by any stretch, but it also not the worst Trek movie, by any stretch. That's a toss up between Nemesis and Into Darkness, and these days I'd likely rank NEM a step higher. Into Darkness is soooo bad.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,202
To be fair, the only other things that are memorable is the "secret pain" sequence with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy ("I need my pain"), "What does God need with a Starship", and the use of color and some of the cinematography. I mean, it's not a great movie by any stretch, but it also not the worst Trek movie, by any stretch. That's a toss up between Nemesis and Into Darkness, and these days I'd likely rank NEM a step higher. Into Darkness is soooo bad.
I don't know if it's like with the Prequels where fans are trying to redeem the movie, but I've seen people online make a defense of Into Darkness and I don't get it. lol

Someone did an edit of V that turned it into a TOS episode and I remember enjoying it in that context at least. That said it's probably my least viewed movie of the original 6.
 
Nov 27, 2020
4,261
I don't know if it's like with the Prequels where fans are trying to redeem the movie, but I've seen people online make a defense of Into Darkness and I don't get it. lol

Someone did an edit of V that turned it into a TOS episode and I remember enjoying it in that context at least. That said it's probably my least viewed movie of the original 6.
It's not just that Into Darkness is a bad Trek movie. The portrayal of Kahn, Kirk's death, the magic blood, and the Star Destroyer…er…starship name Vengeance all made it bad Trek, but the very premise comes from a repugnant and cynical place. If Enterprise Season 3 is "Star Trek: 9/11", then Into Darkness is "Star Trek: 9/11 Was An Inside Job". The fact that any media gave that much oxygen to a fringe conspiracy theory, much less a Star Trek movie is really gross to me. I'd take Picard cruising around in a dune buggy all day, every day, over that.