When Paramount released JJ Abrams' second feature film on May 8, 2009, it became a surprise critical and commercial hit. The film was a reboot of one of the most celebrated science fiction IPs of all time - Star Trek. The film introduced into Star Trek lore what has been officially dubbed the Kelvin Timeline - an alternate reality that diverged from previously established Star Trek history (aka the Prime Timeline). More than ten years later, the newest series of Trek films are struggling to get a fourth installment off the ground.
On January 30, 2020, CinemaBlend published an article titled "Why The Star Trek Movies Don't Need To Return To The Kelvin Timeline." As the title suggests, it outlines one writer's thoughts on why "it's time to move on from the idea of... the Kelvin Timeline in general." The following post is going to be my response to that article, starting off with the most agreeable point and going on from there.
1. Bringing the band back together
CinemaBlend writes:
...we have no idea right now if Paramount is looking to make Star Trek 4... but if [it is], that may be a challenge. The development process so far has been start and stop for partly that reason, with big ticket actors like Chris Pine... exiting for other projects when things stagnate. [He would] surely come at a high price tag, as would others, like Marvel actress Zoe Saldana.The article brings up a valid concern - what would it cost for the main Kelvin Timeline cast to reprise their roles a fourth time? Though I find it rather odd that somehow Warner Bros. (WB) can afford to have Chris Pine in Wonder Woman while keeping that film's budget at around $150 million. Perhaps Paramount should work out a deal similar to what WB offered to have Steve Trevor return in Wonder Woman 1984?
2. Dude, where's the fire?
The first excuse reason the article tries to justify the idea of abandoning the Kelvin Timeline is the existence new Star Trek shows. As CinemaBlend indicated:
Star Trek currently has Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Discovery (STD) running in the Prime Timeline, and more shows are on the way. The lore is expanding and new plot threads are being developed, and that's going to be the case for quite a while.... Then there's the Kelvin Timeline, which hasn't had a movie in close to four years. Granted, long gaps between these movies has been typical, but beyond some comic book entries and an upcoming novel, there's not a lot happening in the Kelvin Timeline. Why pick things back up there, especially when there's so much going on in the Prime Timeline?Okay, this reads like a rather superficial excuse. So what if a lot is happening in the Prime Timeline? Going by the writer's logic, then perhaps Voyager should have been cancelled because Deep Space Nine had "a lot of things happening" and was still located in the Alpha Quadrant when compared to the former (Dominion War vs. Lost in Space, which sounds more exciting?).
The writer from CinemaBlend tries to support his flimsy argument of "don't bother with something that ain't fleshed out" with what I feel is the actual reason why he doesn't want to see more films in the Kelvin Timeline:
Personally, I'd love to see the return of Star Trek movies that are tied to shows, especially now that the likes of Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard are back to "boldly going" in uncharted territory in the Prime Timeline. It'd be great to see these shows get their due on the silver screen, though I can understand why Hollywood may not want to make movies that specifically cater to the niche television-only crowd.LOL! Anyone who has done their homework is well aware that STD has a mixed reception with general audiences at best. If more well received shows such as Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise couldn't get their own films, it wouldn't make much financial sense to gamble on a movie based on what's perhaps the most controversial iteration of Star Trek to date. If movies featuring the most popular Star Trek crew - The Next Generation (TNG) cast - couldn't get past $150 million in the box office, its very unlikely that the STD cast - the least liked crew in Star Trek history - can do better. (Unless its a total reboot that magically turns them better than Picard and company.) With the new Picard series only two episodes in, I feel it's too early to properly comment on that show's future prospects.
3. Established foundations
CinemaBlend expands its case with the following:
Star Trek: Beyond underwhelmed at the box office though, so it wouldn't be surprising to learn a reboot is in order.... I would think it would be much easier to reboot the movies within the Prime Timeline, provided that is the plan. The lore is established, which means the guidelines of what not to do or contradict is already set in stone. Plus, there's an opportunity to bring in some added familiarity through characters cameoing who Star Trek fans know and love, if only to help put butts in seats and warm them up to new characters.At first glance, this seems easy. But the major caveat I would point out with using the Prime Timeline is this: because there are already established rules/aesthetics/events, you have to pay utmost respect to those guidelines. And knowing how zealous (at least some) Trekkies can be, you must treat the so called Roddenberry box as though you are handling nothing less than holy writ. With how STD has been doing thus far, the one thing the show is good at is ruining the coherence of the Prime Timeline as left by Rick Berman and company after Enterprise was cancelled in 2005. STD added technologies, aesthetics, and events that didn't exist during the 23rd century in prior shows. One notable example is the depiction of the USS Enterprise:
Anyone can easily discern that the above image doesn't show the exact same ship. Further proof of this would be the bridge:
"Officially", STD and its showrunners want you to believe that the Enterprise in the show was the precursor of the same ship featured in The Original Series (TOS). It's like someone claiming that the F-14 Tomcat is a future iteration of the F-22 Raptor, and that the two planes are the one and the same! I'd argue that the STD Enterprise is a better fit as an older model of the Kelvin Timeline Enterprise. Now this is just one out of many examples how STD ruins the coherence of the Prime Timeline. I'd better stop right here before this post turns into a list of inconsistencies on STD.
Regarding the idea of using cameos in new movies, while I'm not against it, if done wrong they might end up somehow overshadowing the new characters intended to be the leads of the story. Case in point: STD Season Two when Christopher Pike became the temporary captain of the Discovery. Some fans even speculate that this was one reason why William Shatner wasn't brought back for the 2009 Star Trek film, as his presence alongside Leonard Nimoy might have diverted the film's focus away from Chris Pine and the new cast.
4. New things
The final point the article touches upon would be this fancy to see something "new". As written in the article:
Part of the thrill of this Star Trek television renaissance is that, for the first time in a long time, major things are happening in the franchise. It would be a real shame that while Star Trek is traveling a thousand years into the future on the small screen, the movie side could potentially be going back to a franchise it started over a decade ago.
I believe fans want something new, which is why there was such a buzz surrounding the possibility of Quentin Tarantino directing a movie. Star Trek is getting the kind of shake up akin to that on the television side, but the mainstream hasn't seen that as of late from the movie side.After 18 years of continuous syndication, it was inevitable that a franchise run by the people who did not want make things "too different" would feel stagnant to audiences. One of the criticisms of Star Trek Into Darkness was that it was nothing more than a rehash of The Wrath of Khan. Conversely, doing something new and/or distinctive does not automatically make the end product good. It ultimately boils down to execution. Yes, STD shook up the franchise by "boldly going in uncharted territory in the Prime Timeline", but it was not in a direction that is consistent with the rest of Star Trek on TV. Despite having the word "Discovery" in the title, STD feels more of a prelude to "a grim dark future where there is only war" as opposed to a series focused on exploration and... well, discovery. And also, "Star Trek television renaissance"? What is this pertaining to? Is it because, as per the Oxford dictionary, Star Trek is experiencing "a situation when there is new interest... after a period when it was not very popular." I sincerely hope that the writer was using the term "renaissance" in that context, and not with the Merriam-Webster definition in mind: "a movement or period of vigorous artistic and intellectual activity." If anything, STD represents Star Trek television in the Dark Ages. Why else are dispirited Trek fans are jumping ship for The Orville, a show that some have dismissed as "TNG with dick jokes"?
Do I want to see "New, Exciting Things" for Star Trek on film? Yes, but only if done right. If not, I'd rather watch that Wrath of Khan rehash any time of the day... or the worst that the Rick Berman era Trek has to offer for that mater.
Overall Take
The article's final point made me ask this one simple question: "So why couldn't a revitalization of Star Trek on film occur within the Kelvin Timeline?" Besides the already quoted paragraphs, there were a couple that had a rather disconcerting line of thought, namely:
... crafting a story that fully utilizes this talented cast... can be an issue. Guys like Karl Urban have almost backed out in the past due to their lessened roles, and there's really no getting around excluding a number of the cast in any Star Trek adventure. It's typically not a huge deal in television because there are more episodes to let individual cast members stand out, but obviously the situation is different in movies.The initial impression I got out of this part of the article was this: it's problematic to make a script for an ensemble event movie such as, I dunno, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War, and Avengers: Endgame! At first, I told myself it was just a passing nitpick. Then the article stated this:
My problem with a reboot happening in the Kelvin Timeline is that it would be complicated, which may sound contradictory considering I literally just said the universe is empty compared to the Prime Timeline.
But it really isn't, because... rebooting the franchise within the Kelvin Timeline then creates the burden of further fleshing out the universe. For example, if [someone] decided to cast James McAvoy as the Kelvin Jean-Luc Picard, there are going to be questions on how the world has changed since Chris Pine's Kirk was on the Enterprise. This means concocting a whole timeline of events that are similar to the Prime Timeline, but different in key areas.
Before I get to my main point, let me say get this observation out of the way: despite being allegedly set in the "Prime Timeline", after 29 episodes, STD has yet to explain why the technology and aesthetics look futuristic for a show that claims to take place before The Original Series. Because of that, I have many "questions on how the galaxy has changed since Capt. Jonathan Archer was on the Enterprise." For starters, did the Temporal Cold War somehow brought more futuristic technology into early 23rd century? In the interest of time though, I'll leave that discussion to more dedicated Trek fans online.
I feel that the among the article's main arguments, the most disconcerting for me is this: it's just too hard, complicated, and burdensome to make a good story! This mentality reminded me of what I feel is a worrisome development when it comes to the most vocal of Trekkies on the web. Namely, that these fans love to complain so much (ie: calling JJ Abrams as Jar Jar Abrams because they claim that he's just as bad, if not worse than Uwe Boll because he "ruined" Star Trek, which was "perfect" before the 2009 reboot film), yet they don't present any interesting alternatives or solutions because "it's too hard." They remind me of the Vaalians from the TOS episode The Apple - a group that stagnated because of being unable to think for themselves and are dependent on the gods (in this case, the showrunners). In contrast, after the disastrous Star Wars: The Last Jedi, many vocal fans online not only clearly pointed out what made the movie so problematic, but also presented ways on how could it have been better. The same thing happened in the aftermath of Game of Thrones: Season 8, with fans going into alternate scenarios how that final season could have played out. I'm not saying that there are no Trekkies out there who are problem solvers as well, it's just that the whiners somehow managed to obtain the loudest possible megaphones that drown out the more sensible fans. I'm tired of seeing this "can't do", defeatist attitude among Trekkies who whine about viewscreens and nacelles yet can't give suggestions or alternatives to the problems they are complaining about. I supposed I expected better from Trekkies in general, because presumably Star Trek is a more scientific, intellectually oriented IP compared to Star Wars. On that note, my critique about the CinemaBlend article comes to an end. But what can you do with the Kelvin Timeline? Now I'm going to put money where my mouth is....
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
As the article pointed out, "there's not a lot happening in the Kelvin Timeline." The way I see it though, it presents a golden opportunity for any Trek fan with creative talent. As Winston Churchill once said:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
The fact that not much has been established in the Kelvin Timeline means a lot more freedom to create new stories within that timeline, take it to places that ain't confined within the Roddenberry box whilst honoring what made Star Trek so influential in the first place. Now a great 120+ page screenplay won't just spring forth fully formed like Athena from Zeus' forehead, but there are interesting ideas out there that can be used as a foundation for such a story. One obvious starting off point would be contemporary issues. As an article from the History Channel points out, "When Klingons Were Stand-Ins for the Soviets", since the days of TOS, Star Trek has dabbled with real world events. From here I'm going to give a simple pitch for a future Kelvin Timeline film: have the Federation compete against another superpower that threatens to destabilize the peace and prosperity of the Alpha Quadrant. But what will this "anti-Federation" superpower be like? Thankfully, you don't have to look far to find a potential real world counterpart: The People's Republic of China under Xi Jinping. The China of today is arguably more authoritarian than the surprisingly progressive empire ruled by the Tang Dynasty during the 7th and 8th centuries. The Washington Post published on January 30, 2020 an article titled "Putting China in charge of the world’s intellectual property is a bad idea." Here are some relevant excerpts:
Beijing is lobbying hard to take over leadership of the international organization that oversees intellectual property, which could result in dire consequences for the future of technology and economic competition....
On its face, allowing China to assume leadership of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) poses a clear risk to the integrity of the institution, given that the U.S. government has singled out China as the leading source of intellectual property theft in the world. The Chinese government has made economic espionage, the theft of trade secrets and forced technology transfer key parts of its state-sponsored strategy of economic aggression. If China were to control the WIPO, all kinds of fundamental intellectual property information could go directly into the hands of the Chinese government, and that, in turn, could undermine basic trust and confidence in the international patent system.
“We cannot let a regime that continues to blatantly undermine the rules-based system by failing to ensure open markets or respect for intellectual property rights, ascend as the global leader of intellectual property policy,” Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Trump last month.
China’s WIPO leadership bid is just the latest part of its comprehensive effort to assume control of as many U.N. and multilateral organizations as possible. Smartly, Beijing has recognized the importance of playing a leading role in global governance and has devoted enormous resources to its plan.
A look at Beijing’s record reveals that its strategy is not to bolster these institutions for universal benefit but to advance China’s interests. In the U.N. organizations China now leads, the results have been terrible.
In 2015, China took over the leadership of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The ICAO quickly stopped inviting Taiwan to its annual assembly. This week, the ICAO blocked experts on Twitter who demanded that the group include Taiwan in response to the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak.
Last February, reports revealed the ICAO hid for months a major hack of its servers that originated from China. The ICAO leadership then retaliated against the whistleblower who exposed the coverup.
Since China assumed leadership of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 2015, the ITU has drastically increased cooperation with Beijing, among other things by promoting China’s Belt and Road Initiative and defending Chinese telecom giant Huawei. The United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), also led by a Chinese official, is pushing the Belt and Road Initiative and is building a “big data research institute” inside China in partnership with Beijing....
“Beijing’s ambition to head the WIPO is part of a wider pattern in which the Chinese authorities are looking to take a leadership role in critical rules-based institutions, including but also not limited to the U.N.,” said Christopher Walker, vice president for studies at the National Endowment for Democracy. “They have proved adept at using these positions to transform organizations from within, often in ways that are inhospitable to governance integrity and basic democratic standards.”
This is worse than letting the fox into the henhouse. This is akin to choosing a bank robber to be president of the bank. In Beijing’s economic strategy, intellectual property theft is a feature, not a bug.
The United States and its partners who believe in rule of law, transparency and accountability in world governance cannot and should not try to thwart every Chinese attempt to lead international organizations. In this case, though, the stakes are too high not to try.
As if stealing intellectual property wasn't bad enough, it gets worse. A day before, The Washington Post published an article titled "100 things the United States must do to compete with China." Without further ado:
There is a growing bipartisan consensus in Washington that the United States is losing its advantage in the strategic competition with China. But, so far, there has been little agreement on what to do about it. Today, there is a new blueprint with almost 100 ideas for how to get started.
A group of former officials, both Republicans and Democrats, and experts have put forth a large set of specific proposals on how the U.S government, industry and society writ large can meet the challenge of a rising China. The aim is to give the United States the best chance of preserving its national security, prosperity and freedom in the face of China’s growing power and influence.
What’s important about this group and its report, released by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), is their taking for granted that competing with China is the most important foreign policy task our country faces. The work also assumes that Beijing’s comprehensive international expansion must be countered with a commensurate effort on the part of the United States, which will require reforms and new initiatives on a scale unseen in the modern age.
“If we are going to get this right, the China challenge has to be the single or one of the top organizing principles of U.S. foreign policy,” said CNAS senior fellow Ely Ratner, one of the report’s principal authors. “What we need now is an honest conversation that dealing with the China challenge is going to require more cost and more risk than we anticipated.”
The report was mandated by Congress in the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act and contracted to CNAS by the Defense Department. It’s the third of its kind in the past decade. The initial mandate was to focus on developing a comprehensive defense strategy for the Indo-Pacific region.
But the final product ended up covering much more than just defense and addresses the China competition far beyond Asia....
Of course, there’s no political consensus yet in the United States on the severity of the threat coming from the China as it expands economically, technologically, diplomatically, militarily and culturally, and as the Chinese Communist Party seeks to exert political pressure far beyond its borders. Some believe the China threat is overblown. Some believe confrontation is inevitable.
This group set out to avoid either extreme and simply to agree that the strategic competition with China is on, that it can’t be waged by the national security community alone and that the United States is far from prepared....
Modernizing U.S. defenses and reorienting them toward the China competition makes up only one aspect of the recommendations. The authors lay out ideas for changes and new programs to secure U.S. technological primacy, shore up U.S. economic integrity, reinvigorate U.S. diplomacy, fight the worldwide ideological battle for Western values, preserve a free and open information environment and build a talent pool to do all of the above.
There’s a heavy focus on bolstering the United States and its partners rather than trying to contain China’s ambitions. There are also proposals for new rules, norms and institutions to address issues brought forth by the advance of new technologies.
Engagement with China must be part of the overall strategy, the authors emphasize, but the recommendations take a clear-eyed approach to Beijing’s economic aggression, military expansion and efforts to interfere in free societies to serve China’s interests. Crucially, the authors argue, the greater public must be educated and engaged on the China challenge....
The political debate over the China threat remains unresolved. But meanwhile, the Chinese government’s strategy to replace the United States as the primary power in Asia — and eventually in the world — continues apace. These 100 tasks can, at least, get our response going in the right direction. There’s no time to waste.Whether or not you believe these articles are sensationalized or not, they illustrate that China's march to reclaim its "rightful place in the sun" can provide a lot of interesting ideas that can form the basis of a future Kelvin Timeline film, or for any upcoming Star Trek project. Imagine a scenario where the Federation became stagnant and a new galactic power (perhaps the Dominion in the Kelvin Timeline?) takes advantage of this situation to position itself as the dominant force in the Alpha Quadrant without firing a shot. In response, the Federation has to shake itself from apathy and rise up to the challenge of maintaining the stability of the Quadrant, but without going to war against this "anti-Federation" power. That, in my opinion, would make an engaging, relevant and inspirational story if done justice. Of course, this is just one example where Star Trek can go from here. Other ideas I have offhand include Kirk vs. the Borg, or a Federation mission to explore the Andromeda Galaxy. Where some may see the Kelvin Timeline as a blank slate that deserves to be abandoned, I see a foundation for something greater.
As of now, Star Trek is under the "guidance" of Alex Kurtzman and his production company Secret Hideout. Under his control, Kurtzman has turned the franchise into something so tonally different from what it was in the past that it might as well be called "Star Trek In Name Only." It's a damn shame that despite Disney's Star Wars going off the rails, Star Trek isn't capitalizing on the void being created by Kathleen Kennedy's multiple misfires. I can't wait for Kurtzman and Secret Hideout to loose control over the franchise. Only then can a more creative and dedicated group of fans have an opportunity to really take Star Trek into a true renaissance, "a period of vigorous artistic and intellectual activity."
