Noah Hawley takes on the next Star Trek movie (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

I think Abrams did a great job with ‘09 but he wasn’t passionate about the franchise and he didn’t do any of the writing, so to my mind, there just wasn’t a compelling reason to wait four years for him. Back then he wasn’t the guy who directed the multi-billion grossing The Force Awakens; he was a guy coming off his second film. Paramount really should have said to him, “The sequel is coming out in 2011 with or without you, we’d rather with, but we’re going ahead with this.” Instead, they put Trek on the back burner and allowed Abrams to do Super 8 before even beginning a Star Trek conversation. Paramount’s approach to this has made no sense. It’s like they want Star Trek movies to magically appear but don’t understand that movie studios are in the business of making movies.

 

[Sam Favate]

Paramount’s approach to this has made no sense. It’s like they want Star Trek movies to magically appear but don’t understand that movie studios are in the business of making movies.

Well, to be fair, Paramount's not really a movie studio anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

 

[JimmyO]

I always look back at the opening scene in Star Trek 09 as one of the most exciting Trek sequences shot - especially in the Kelvin timeline. I will load up the film just to watch that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It’s a wonderful opening, and it’s a great entry point if you’ve never done anything Star Trek before. You don’t feel like you have a hundred hours of things to watch before you can hope to understand. It puts humanity front and center ahead of technology and sci-fi worldbuilding (while still checking those boxes).

I had no idea what to expect walking into the movie opening night, but I was skeptical. After that sequence, I was fully on board. That was the kind of filmmaking and storytelling right there that was capable of widening the Trek audience.

 

[Jason_V]

It’s like they want Star Trek movies to magically appear but don’t understand that movie studios are in the business of making movies.

Paramount has always had someone on the Trek side steering the movies. Always. For TMP, it was Roddenberry. For ST II through ST V, it was Harve Bennett. (Heaven knows how ST VI ever got made...) And then Berman took over for Generations through Nemesis. Paramount, the studio, never had to get the conversation going and be the focal point of a writer or director. They always had someone around who knew how to do it.

I think they wanted JJ to be that guy for the Kelvin universe. The 09 movie was great...and then Paramount an CBS f'ed up what JJ wanted to do and he went to do Star Wars. I want to say Into Darkness was an after thought - but I really want to use the phrase "after thought" for Beyond. No one was steering that ship and it clearly showed.

Get a franchise executive producer, someone with a vision, and move forward. Stop sitting at go and make a damn movie already. Or don't. Keep Trek on the TV and forget the movies.

 

[Chip_HT]

In the time since the first Abrams movie, the original set of films made 5 movies and was working on a sixth. (It's been eleven years since 2009; the original six films spanned 1979-1991, 12 years). In today's marketplace, you cannot take 4 years or more between films, especially not when you are trying to grow your audience.

That's a much more favorable comparison than Harry Potter. HP had specific source material to draw from, and a much louder ticking clock due to the lead actors very rapidly aging out of the parts.

 

[Tommy R]

I actually thought Beyond was by far the best of the new 3 movies. ‘09 and Into Darkness were both oh-so-very unremarkable. Though I’ll give Into Darkness an extra “lame” against it for its stupid ending (repeating the end of WoK). The best thing about the new movies is the cast. I thought they were all great. Just about the only reason I’d be upset about them starting over and doing something different.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I actually thought Beyond was by far the best of the new 3 movies.

I agree with this.

‘09 and Into Darkness were both oh-so-very unremarkable. Though I’ll give Into Darkness an extra “lame” against it for its stupid ending (repeating the end of WoK).

I liked the 2009 movie quite bit. I strongly disliked Into Darkness for just being a retread of "Space Seed"/Wrath of Khan, with some generic sci-fi action elements thrown into the mix.

The best thing about the new movies is the cast. I thought they were all great.

I agree with this, too. Every character was wonderfully (re)cast. They're the main reason I want a fourth movie in the Kelvin timeline. But I think S.J. Clarkson would have been better suited to that than Hawley.

 

[Tino]

I loved all three. None of the usual
oft repeated criticisms of Into Darkness bothered me at all.

 

[Bryan^H]

When "Beyond" fumbled at the box office, I kind of knew it was the end of Trek in that form. With that cast. The Tarantino talk of possibly using that cast would have reignited a demand for it. But now that that is dead too, it is only logical to start fresh. Although my anticipation has completely fizzled for big, box office Trek (they had their time, they were great, the end), and switched to CBS All Access Trek in my home.

 

[Malcolm R]

Well, to be fair, Paramount's not really a movie studio anymore and hasn't been for a long time.

To be fair, they're still making and releasing movies, with 16 wide releases on the schedule for 2020. Not sure what they are if not a movie studio. They're just not interested in making Trek, apparently.

 

[TravisR]

It’s a wonderful opening, and it’s a great entry point if you’ve never done anything Star Trek before. You don’t feel like you have a hundred hours of things to watch before you can hope to understand. It puts humanity front and center ahead of technology and sci-fi worldbuilding (while still checking those boxes).

I had no idea what to expect walking into the movie opening night, but I was skeptical. After that sequence, I was fully on board. That was the kind of filmmaking and storytelling right there that was capable of widening the Trek audience.

Without my having enjoyed the 2009 movie, I know I would have never bothered to even give a chance to TOS. I'm glad I did because it's a fun show.

 

[Sam Favate]

To be fair, they're still making and releasing movies, with 16 wide releases on the schedule for 2020. Not sure what they are if not a movie studio. They're just not interested in making Trek, apparently.

Paramount is the holder of intellectual property. It’s partners - primarily Skydance - put up most of the money. Without Skydance, Paramount would have ceased to exist some time ago.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Noah Hawley's project is now on the backburner:

One reason could be due to a plot centering around a virus that wipes out vast parts of the known universe, a topic that not seen as a good or sensitive fit if you’re making escapist entertainment given the current coronavirus pandemic.

More at the link: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/noah-hawleys-star-trek-back-burner-1306485

Paramount is apparently still developing Quentin Tarantino's version, and a fourth in the reboot series started by Abrams, separately.

Do they have any idea what they're doing over there? I mean, I'm not super into Star Trek and have only seen the recent reboot movies, so the rest of you probably have much more fully formed opinions on this than I do since there's a lot I just don't know about Trek. But this feels to me like a situation where they're throwing a bunch of different things against the wall just to see what will stick.

 

[Jason_V]

Okay, so full disclosure: I saw an email on my phone with this thread's title in it and I said to myself "huh, the Hawley movie is probably off the table now."

And guess what?

I'm going to be cynical and say no, they have no idea what they're actually doing. Star Trek Beyond is now 4 years old and we've had two televised seasons of Discovery, one of Picard, Lower Decks has started and Discovery Season 3 has a release date in October. What's the feature film people doing? Announcing SJ Clarkson as director and then she leaves. Introducing Hawley and now this. But the oft-mentioned Tarantino project (which everyone is JUST salivating over because it's King Tarantino) is still "in development"; betcha Tarantino Trek doesn't happen either.

I don't honestly care anymore. Into Darkness was an uninspired Khan rip off and Beyond was a poor man's action movie set in the Trek universe.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That’s pretty much it. Paramount has rarely managed its theatrical Trek well. They have an expectation problem. They expect the film to have box office success on par with an MCU or Harry Potter or Dark Knight title and then get really bummed when that doesn’t happen. They don’t know how to make them consistently enough to build an audience, and lean on expensive action sequences to increase potential appeal, which drives the budget beyond what’s reasonable for what the films gross.

I don’t think they need to move to the Blumhouse “make it for $1.98” model and I do love all three of the high budget reboots, but I’d love to see them cap the budget at $100 million rather than $200 million and let the writing make up the difference. I think Paramount was interested in Hawley in part because he’s made theatrical looking content for television on a television budget, and Tarantino because his films are also reasonably budgeted yet very immersive within their settings. While the two men have very different sensibilities, their work demonstrated an ability to solve storytelling issues with writing rather than budget.

 

[Ejanss]

I liked the 2009 movie quite bit. I strongly disliked Into Darkness for just being a retread of "Space Seed"/Wrath of Khan, with some generic sci-fi action elements thrown into the mix.

And even worse, Beyond basically being the natural logically-following retread of Search For Spock, with the characters crash-landed on a woodsy planet, split up and running around the underbrush trying to find each other without a ship, while some unexplained and generically-forgettable villain pursues them on a generically-forgettable vendetta for never-sufficiently-explained reasons, until they try to use his ship to get off the planet...Maltz, jol yIchu'!

That’s pretty much it. Paramount has rarely managed its theatrical Trek well. They have an expectation problem. They expect the film to have box office success on par with an MCU or Harry Potter or Dark Knight title and then get really bummed when that doesn’t happen. They don’t know how to make them consistently enough to build an audience, and lean on expensive action sequences to increase potential appeal, which drives the budget beyond what’s reasonable for what the films gross.

It's not that they ambitiously expect it to compete with Disney's MCU or Warner's Batman, it's that they feel they strategically HAVE to, to survive:

Welcome to movies in the (former) 10's, where studios trying to capture Marvel's Magic feel they have to make "universes" out of their iconic trademark-property house brand--like the Nike Swoosh competing with Apple's Apple, McDonald's Arches and the Pillsbury Doughboy in a cage match--and Paramount is...a bit short on brands.
They thought they were going to make one out of the Transformers, but then the bat-looney #5 happened; they thought it was going to be Michael Bay's Ninja Turtles, and then the well-meaning but messily anti-climactic second one happened. So, they doubled their bets on the reliable JJ Abrams Star Trek, and..."Beyond" happened. (Kirk attacked by space monkeys, people....Space. Monkeys.)

At the moment, apart from what Paramount thought was their three house brands, Nickelodeon Pictures is keeping up half the studio's output, so Spongebob Squarepants was expected to pick up in '20 whatever slack Dora the Explorer couldn't last year.
Um, that was before the pandemic and "In-home premieres!" for "Sponge on the Run", however.

 

[Osato]

Interesting news.

 

[MattBradley]

Isn't that what Star Trek is meant to be? To explore a virus that devastates the universe is exactly like exploring the USA vs USSR relationship that the original series did. I think they SHOULD do it!

Side note: recently learned that Chris Pine is the son of Robert Pine from C.H.I.P.S. Blew my mind!

 

[benbess]

....I'm not super into Star Trek and have only seen the recent reboot movies, so the rest of you probably have much more fully formed opinions on this than I do since there's a lot I just don't know about Trek. But this feels to me like a situation where they're throwing a bunch of different things against the wall just to see what will stick.

I think you're right that they don't really know what they are doing.

And as Josh has said the budgets are out of proportion, since Star Trek is not going to have the box office of Harry Potter, MCU, and Star Wars. They need to find a well-written Star Trek movie they can make for c. $100 million.

Well, Jake, since you haven't seen any of the old Star Trek TV shows, for the heck of it I'm going to suggest a few episodes to consider watching on Netflix or Amazon, both of which I think have the original series, Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager. Here goes.

For the original show I suggest City on the Edge of Forever, which is from the 1st season and is the 28th episode.

For Star Trek: The Next Generation I recommend Time Squared, which is from the second season and is the 13th episode.

For Star Trek: Deep Space Nine the episode Duet is considered something of a dramatic classic, and it's the 19th episode of the 1st season.

For Star Trek: Voyager the 1st season epic premiere of the show, called Caretaker, is a good little Star Trek movie.

All of these are stand alone episodes. You don't need to know anything about the characters or Trek to watch them. If somehow you get into one of these shows, let me know and I can suggest some more episodes. The truth is that about half of all the episodes on these old Trek shows are "duds," and so watching the good episodes I think is the way to go.