The Next Star Trek Movie Doesn't Have to Be the Darkest Yet. It Needs a Crew Worth Caring About

I recently asked whether a darker Star Trek movie with a brand new crew sounded like a good idea, and after reading every single response, I think Hollywood has a bigger problem than figuring out its timeline. A lot of you aren't asking whether this movie will be good. You're asking whether the people making it even understand what you're waiting to see.

One reply summed it up better than the entire studio presentation: "Why do they never announce a thoughtful science fiction adventure anymore?" Seriously, why does that sound like a risky pitch?

The new Star Trek movie is being sold as the darkest Trek yet

We know we're getting a new movie. We also know it is going to be set ahead in the timeline, somewhere we haven't gone before, with a brand new crew, and that it's going to be the darkest Trek yet. We hear darker, we hear different, and we hear another movie being used to explain what this movie will feel like.

Meanwhile, people are basically asking whether we could explore something. Apparently we've reached the point where strange new worlds is a radical suggestion for Star Trek.

To be clear, this isn't another announcement. We don't suddenly have a trailer or a confirmed crew. This is a follow up to that interview and, more importantly, to what you said in response to my last piece, because there were disagreements worth getting into.

Fans are split between a new beginning, Kirk and letting Star Trek rest

Some of you want a completely new beginning. Some want Kirk and the original crew. Some want the prime timeline moving forward. And a few of you would apparently prefer that we turn the lights off, lock the doors and let the franchise rest. It really makes me sad to even say that, but I get it.

Across all those different answers, I kept seeing the same concern: give us something we care about before asking us to see it suffer.

A new crew has to earn what Spock's death in The Wrath of Khan already had

That brings me to a fair criticism of my last piece. One of you pointed out that the established Trek crew gives a movie an enormous advantage. We already know these people. We know what their friendships mean and what they stand to lose, so the movie doesn't have to spend its first hour convincing us that the person in the captain's chair matters. You're right. When Spock dies in The Wrath of Khan, that scene has years of history behind it. The glass matters because we understand the friendship on either side of it.

You can introduce a new captain and a new science officer, put them through something tragic and make a good movie. But you can't assume their friendship means the same thing to us just because they wear familiar uniforms. I think that's the challenge this new crew would face, and simply saying all new characters doesn't solve it.

I still think new characters are the right direction. I do. But they have to earn that investment. Give me a captain making a decision that tells me who they are, or an officer whose disagreement makes sense. Show us why these people trust each other, or why they don't yet. I don't need everybody's childhood explained. I need behavior that makes me interested in that person.

I think the 26 episode requests describe what Star Trek fans miss

That is probably why so many responses about a movie immediately turned into requests for longer television seasons. Twenty six episodes came up repeatedly, and I don't think everybody saying that has forgotten we're discussing a film. I think you're describing something you miss: time with your favorite crew. Time for an episode where the universe isn't ending, where we aren't crossing into the multiverse. Time for a weird little story that might not make anybody's top 10 list but gives the ship and the show personality. You learn things about people when every conversation isn't happening 30 seconds before an explosion or under 27 different lens flares.

Twenty six episodes isn't a magic quality button. We sat through plenty of rough episodes back in the day. Sometimes the extra time gave us a classic. Sometimes it gave us a candle and a deeply uncomfortable afternoon with Beverly Crusher. Anybody remember?

Even an uneven season could make that ship feel like somewhere familiar. You spent enough time there to recognize the routines, the friendships and the little tensions, and that familiarity gave the bigger episodes something to work for. A movie has far less room. If this new film wants us to attach to the crew, it has to use that room carefully and fast. "Every character cannot just be a job title with a sarcastic line."

A fresh crew doesn't mean cutting ties to the Federation's history

Another disagreement was about continuity. Some of you heard new characters and worried that meant throwing away the connection to everything before them. I don't think we need to choose between a fresh crew and a universe with history. A new captain can know about a major event from the franchise's past without being related to somebody who was there. A new ship can operate under Federation principles and its banner without Picard appearing to personally approve the launch. Vulcans, Klingons, the Prime Directive and the consequences of earlier decisions can all give the story roots. The connection doesn't always need to walk into the room and slap you across the face.

That's where I push back on the idea that Trek needs the same crew to remain Trek. It doesn't. I do understand the attachment. Trust me, I am a nostalgia driven fool. But if we had applied that rule when The Next Generation started, we would have rejected its captain before he ever had a chance. So I think we should demand that new people belong in the universe, and also give them room to become interesting without checking their family tree for a familiar surname.

Janeway and Archer are useful reminders that pressure can come from circumstances

And yes, to the person who pointed it out: I left Janeway and Archer out of the discussion. That's fair. Both belong in it. Janeway had to keep a crew together far from everything supporting her, and Archer faced situations where humanity didn't have the experience or institutions later captains could rely on.

Those are useful reminders that pressure can come from the circumstances around a crew. You don't have to make everyone incompetent to create a difficult mission.

A Prime Directive dilemma is the darker Star Trek story I would line up for

That leads to one of my favorite suggestions: put the crew somewhere so dangerous and so morally difficult that they have to seriously question whether refusing to interfere is itself the wrong decision. That's a movie I'll see, because the conflict is immediate. People need help. Intervening can make the situation worse. The crew has rules for a reason, but those rules don't make the suffering disappear.

The captain needs information, judgment and people willing to challenge the answer. You can make that frightening, darker and tense, and the science fiction could actually change the problem instead of decorating it. But you don't have to make everything dark.

Some of you want a bigger Federation civil war: "Border colonies backing methods because they're tired of feeling exposed while people on Earth discuss principles." There's a serious argument inside that suggestion. I really feel that security looks different depending on where you live and what you've survived. It's a story I'd see, but I'd be careful about turning the entire Federation into another battlefield. We've already talked about how often collapse becomes the starting point. Before we tear it wide open again, I want to spend some time seeing why these people would fight to preserve it.

Discovery itself can create the stakes without going darker

That thoughtful adventure line keeps bringing me back to something else: discovery itself can create the stakes. You don't have to go darker for the sake of darker. Finding a new civilization should matter. Learning that you misunderstood that civilization could matter as well. I want the feeling of the situation becoming more interesting as we learn more about it.

Of course, some of you were simply done. You said you have the reruns. You don't trust Paramount, you don't trust anybody at the helm and you don't trust another pitch. I'm not going to tell you a couple of interview answers from these two filmmakers should erase that frustration. They have to show something: a character, a choice, something that makes a person who checked out think maybe they should check this out.

As for me, I've said before that I'm going to take in whatever they throw at me, good or not, because I'm a fan. If they put it in front of me, I'm going to see it and then make a decision. But I don't want darker to become the mantra of this next Trek movie. Send us into the future somewhere we've never gone. That's cool. Give us a brand new crew. I don't have a problem with that. Make it with no ties to the past if you want to. But it doesn't have to be the darkest ever for shock value. "That's not what made Trek special," and a lot of you seem to agree.

I know we're in divisive times, and everybody's worried they're going to keep swinging and missing. But that's how we get our voice out there, and hopefully somebody is listening and gets this right.

So what would a trailer actually have to show to earn your interest: a new ship, some strange discovery, or a captain handling a problem intelligently?