New Star Trek movie: is a darker Starfleet a good idea?

The next Star Trek movie is being developed without Kirk, without Spock and without any of the familiar characters we have followed for decades. Its filmmakers are pointing to Training Day and Crimson Tide as inspiration, and I think that's a wild choice. Those movies are about people discovering that following orders and doing the right thing can become two very different things. Put that situation on the bridge of a Federation starship and you could have something special.

When these filmmakers start talking about corruption inside Starfleet, though, I have a few questions. I want to see Trek back in theaters. I also want to recognize what it stands for when it gets there.

Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley's Star Trek movie is still in development

The filmmakers are Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley. They directed Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, which I think is a really good movie that deserves a sequel, and they worked on the screenplay for Spider-Man: Homecoming. Now they're developing a new Trek movie for Paramount.

Before anyone gets carried away, here is where things stand. There is no announced cast. There is no filming date and no release date. What we have is a movie in development and filmmakers talking about their creative approach. After everything we've heard about potential Trek movies over the years, I think that matters. I'm interested, but I'm going to need to see this thing get in front of a camera. We don't trust Paramount and its Trek projects anymore, and rightfully so.

A new Star Trek crew outside the Kelvin timeline

The first big detail is that this film will feature characters we have never met before. October coverage of the pair's interview with Empire also made it clear that the project sits outside the Kelvin timeline. So if you're waiting for news about Chris Pine's crew getting back together, that's probably not happening. Rest in peace, Trek 4. This project is going in a completely different direction.

I'm open to it. I do wish we could have had one more Kelvin film. I love Kirk and Spock, I love Picard, and I love all those characters. But at some point Trek has to be able to introduce somebody new and make us care about them. It faces the same dilemma Star Wars has with the Skywalker saga.

Think about how much of this franchise we would have missed if everybody had decided the original crew was the only crew that mattered. There was a time when Picard was the new guy. Riker was the new guy. Worf was a character audiences had to get to know. Those characters became important because we watched them earn it, and they earned it with us.

That's the opportunity here. Give us a captain who makes a difficult decision and has to live with the consequences. Give us first officers who disagree for a reason we can understand. Let us spend enough time with these people that when something goes wrong, we care who makes it home. I don't need to recognize the captain before the film starts. "I need to remember that captain at the end of the movie."

Why Training Day and Crimson Tide point to a darker Star Trek

In a September interview with The Playlist, Goldstein and Daley named Training Day and Crimson Tide as their reference points. They talked about examining Starfleet and asking what happens when something is wrong inside that institution.

That idea is not new. We have seen corruption inside Starfleet many times, whether it's aliens, a coup or something else. But Training Day and Crimson Tide go a little deeper and a little darker than that. It's important to be clear that this does not mean we have a confirmed plot where a rookie officer gets assigned to a corrupt captain. We don't. These are the films the filmmakers are using to explain the kind of tension they're interested in.

I don't think they're going to be as on the nose as Training Day. I don't think we're getting a rookie ensign paired with a corrupt captain who makes him do something he shouldn't. That would be wild, and that would be dark, but I don't think that's the route they take. I think they're talking more about the tension and the buildup.

Why a new captain could make a Crimson Tide standoff work

I get the comparisons. Crimson Tide puts two strong personalities in a confined environment, gives them an incredibly consequential decision and makes their disagreement everybody's problem. You understand why the chain of command exists. You also understand how dangerous it becomes when the people at the top disagree about what their orders require. I think that pressure absolutely belongs in Trek.

Imagine you're on a bridge, watching your captain prepare to carry out an order you believe is wrong. You have incomplete information. There could be lives at stake either way. Everyone around you is waiting to see whether you follow that order or challenge it. I'd watch that. You could build an incredible movie around that situation, because every conversation changes what might happen next. A quiet exchange in the ready room can become just as tense as any confrontation.

That is where I think a new crew could help. If Picard is standing on the bridge, I already have years of experience telling me what kind of man he is and what decisions he's going to make. With a new captain, I have to figure it out alongside everyone else. Maybe I trust him or her, maybe I don't. Maybe something about their explanation bothers me. Maybe the officer challenging them has a convincing argument, but I'm still unsure whether that officer understands the whole situation. I think that gives the filmmakers and writers a lot of room to surprise us.

Corruption inside Starfleet needs a reason to believe in the Federation

The corruption angle is where they really have to be careful. In a September interview with The Wrap, Daley talked about questioning what Starfleet represents and how corruption could affect an institution if it goes unchecked. He also described this as their most dramatic writing project and their least comedic.

A serious Trek thriller is something I'm on board for. But what are we trying to say by the time the credits roll? Trek has plenty of room for people who abuse authority, and for officers who convince themselves a terrible decision is necessary. That can all be compelling, especially when somebody has to stand up to a person they once respected.

What I want to see is why the principles of the Federation are worth defending through all of that. Give us an officer who could protect their career by staying quiet and decides to speak anyway, or someone who believes in Starfleet enough to challenge what's happening in its name. There's drama there. You could put a character through enormous pressure while still giving the audience something hopeful to take home.

Bringing new audiences into Star Trek without losing what Starfleet means

I think that's where this movie could connect with people who have never watched an episode of Trek, which is what the filmmakers are trying to do. That's the magic formula: bringing in people who don't know the Trek universe without making them spend 900 episodes catching up on the lore. You don't need a history lesson to understand the fear of realizing your boss is about to make a terrible mistake. You don't need to know the names of 20 Federation planets to understand somebody risking everything to protect another person. Get those human stakes right and audiences have a way in, even if they're not big Trek fans.

The filmmakers have talked about wanting to reach people who don't already consider themselves Trek fans. Goldstein has also spoken about watching the original series growing up and discovering The Next Generation later. So they're describing an effort to welcome a broader audience while drawing on their own connection to the franchise. That's a reasonable goal in my mind. Every new fan has to start somewhere.

My concern would be explaining so little about Starfleet that the audience never understands why its failures matter. You have to give us a sense of what these people believe in. Let us see why somebody wanted to wear the uniform in the first place, and then let that belief get tested.

When the new Star Trek movie takes place is still an open question

There are some confident interpretations floating around about when this movie is set. The filmmakers have referred to moving further into the future, but their comments have not established a specific century. I'd call it ambiguous, and we should leave that question open until they give a clear answer.

I'm less concerned about the number on the calendar than about what they do in that setting. If we're moving forward, that's great. One thing I do want to see is how these people work together before everything falls apart.

I think there's potential here, more than I expected when I first heard we were getting another new approach to a Trek movie. I'm cautiously interested, and I want to see what these filmmakers can do. Does a Crimson Tide style confrontation inside Starfleet sound like something worth going to a theater to see? I think it is. I really do.