I agree about the tone… but I also think Trek is often at its best when it’s not taking itself too seriously.
There is a line though.
Comment on New ‘Star Trek’ Movie In The Works At Paramount From Jonathan Goldstein & John Francis Daley
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 day agoDiscovery never had a connection to Abrams/Bad Robot, unless you were to count Alex Kurtzman, but he’s been involved with every series of the new era, so…you kind of can’t?
In any case, I agree - the D&D movie was a lot of fun, and while I wouldn’t want a ST movie to strike that tone, I’m interested to see what they cook up.
marlowe221@lemmy.world 1 day ago
ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 day ago
I’m the first aboard the “Star Trek contains multitudes” train, for sure.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I could have sworn Discovery was connected with Bad Robot, but it looks like I was wrong.
It still has a “JJ Abrams sensibility” - frantic space combat, overly emotional characters, a lot of flashy but meaningless tech (the hologram communicators as an easy example) and visuals (the way the bridge was often shot). It was very much trying to be loud and new, while throwing in a lot of surface level references to try and give it some franchise credibility (this USS Discovery is a rejected Phase 2 concept design).
It all came together in a loud, unlikable soup that felt inauthentic to the franchise. There was some course correction later on, but too little, too late. Strange New Worlds went the right direction, while the Section 31 movie tripled down on all the worst aspects of Discovery.
I don’t want the Trek movie to have the DND movie tone either, but more like when that movie was made they understood the correct tone to match the franchise. It felt authentic to what DND players experience. If the Trek movie has the same care in figuring out what long time fans want, it will be good.