The next Star Trek film is in limbo. Here are three reasons why that film should not be in the J.J. Abrams-Kelvin timeline.
There is no answer to this debate. Whether you think the answer is more Kelvin films in the vein of J.J. Abrams or returning to the main timeline, there’s no way to say you’re right. So when we talk about what should happen next in the Star Trek franchise, there’s evidence to support both ideas of discontinuing the Kelvin films and moving on to something else.
There’s no good answer with regards to moving onto a new story/universe if you do eave the Kelvin films. Do you stay in the Kelvin universe and reboot Star Trek: The Next Generation? That’ll surely not go over well in 2020. Sure, it was a bit different when the announcement got made in the mid-2000s. They had no idea what to expect. The actors for these roles were in their 70’s, so you’d have to reboot the franchise. It made sense. Then three movies, and three series later, fans are a bit more tepid to new Star Trek ideas; be it right or wrong.
So then what do you do? Make a new franchise with new characters? That’s not a realistic possibility, mostly because Hollywood has gotten away from original ideas these days. So just saying move on from the Kelvin universe isn’t exactly the easiest thing to do. Maybe revisiting older television franchises in some big, cross-promotional release is the way to go. Maybe it’s not.
It’s impossible to say for sure. What is not impossible to say is that whether you liked or disliked the JJ Abrams-Star Trek, the series has found more than enough reasons to warrant being put into cold storage for good.
That’s what we’re looking at, three of the biggest reasons to not do any more Kelvin films.
You know what to expect (financially)
The Star Trek film franchise is not a blockbuster entity. Not compared to the likes of Star Wars, Marvel, and DC-themed movies, among others. You know that if you make a fourth film without major shakeups, you’re going to make $300-$400 million, and that’s not counting the continuing decline that domestic and international box offices have been dealing with as of late. Who knows what the theater-market will look like after COVID-19?
People may never go back. Sure, movies like Scoob! and Trolls World Tour has given people the idea that streaming to home media outlets can work, it’s still not a proven success. It’s also not known how studios will go forward. Some may cut ties with theaters entirely, what will the market for blockbusters look like then?
Beyond that, Star Trek‘s film franchise has never been that huge of a property thematically. Adjusted for inflation, the franchise has just under $4 billion in revenue across all its films. The MCU in just ten years is at $22 billion. Star Trek took 40 years to get to just shy of $4 billion, and that’s with just all the Star Trek films being modified for inflation.
The Trek film franchise isn’t the big get many seem to think it is. The highest-grossing film (with or without inflation) is Star Trek: Into Darkness. The second biggest film? Star Trek: The Motion Picture, 34 years prior. Granted, that was with a box office of only $139 million, but adjusted for inflation, that’s $495 million in 2020 (Into Darkness 2020 adjustment is $519 million).
If you’re looking for a billion-dollar film, it likely won’t come from this form of Star Trek.
Anton Yelchin’s death hurts cast chemistry
It’s so hard to replace an actor who just leaves a property. It’s even harder when that actor is taken away from it. Anton Yelchin, who played the energetic and lively Pavel Chekov, tragically passed away just before the premiere of Star Trek: Beyond from a freak car accident. Yelchin, especially in the second and third Kelvin films had a big role and more of his personality was explored. He was a fan favorite and brought a modern twist on a beloved classic character.
It’d be hard enough to re-cast Yelchin’s Chekov if Yelchin was the first person to play the character. Then consider how beloved Walter Koenig was in the original role and how hard it was to accept anyone else playing the role. To then ask anyone else to step in would be too hard of a challenge, with too little of a payoff. All fans will think is “that could’ve been Yelchin if he were still here”. Fans wouldn’t be able to accept the appearance of the character without Yelchin being attached to it.
Sure you could do some magic-time-travel nonsense and bring Koeing back as Chekov and just say that Chekov came back to the future, but still, it’s not the same.
So the other alternative is doing the film without Checkov, which would mean that fans will still be reminded of Yelchin’s passing. The crew would have to decide to kill off Chekov or write him out. That process can really affect how people take to the film as well.
Trying to move on from Yelchin’s passing is the biggest issue that any new Kelvin films will have to deal with it. Truthfully, if he were still here, there wouldn’t be many strong reasons not to do a fourth film. Without him, however, there’s no good reason to do a fourth film.
They’ve lost the Star Trek identity
When did The Beastie Boys become so necessary in Star Trek? Car chases, motorcycle stunts, and Fast and Furious nonsense are not Star Trek. It was acceptable in Star Trek 2009 because it was the opening scene and didn’t do much to affect the overall tone of the film, but in Star Trek: Beyond, Justin Lin literally made the Beastie Boys a key plot in their defeat of the swarm. Sure, it felt like something out of Guardians of the Galaxy and some fans loved that but that’s the point.
Star Trek isn’t Guardians of the Galaxy.
Star Trek is supposed to deal with ethical debates that aren’t clear or obvious. They’re about finding resolution at all costs, and when peaceful resolution fails, then finding a way out while doing the honorable and noble things becomes the norm. It’s about embracing the idea of right and looking at these men and women as heroes.
Flying around listening to Beastie Boys? That’s not Star Trek at all.
The need to water down these characters is part of the problem. They don’t need to be one-dimensional Marvel characters, they’re deep, complex, and interesting. They’re the driving force of these films, not the special effects or even the plot.
Yet, when J.J. Abrams came in, he brought a tone and focus shift from the original films. Super polished sets that felt completely impractical and the unneeded use of lens flares made these films feel decidedly less than Star Trek. Big stunts replaced great conversations and frankly, Star Trek 2009 is just Star Wars: A New Hope.
Yup, the man remade that movie twice.
Gone are the debates and in are sword fights. Gone are the moral quandaries and in are obvious and easy to root against villains. This isn’t to say that the films aren’t good to a degree, or even great. Personally, Star Trek: Into Darkness is a great film. Yet, it’s not a great Star Trek film. Its a film that needs to be cool instead of compelling, and it’s so obvious.
Star Trek isn’t obvious.