The “Kelvin verse” is history. Where do the Star Trek movies go from here? | film

TThere have been many star treks over the decades. First, we showed a 1960s morality play on cardboard sets; It then became a billion-dollar cinematic epic about space diplomacy. We’ve recently been gifted with an ever-growing array of streaming spin-offs, each more determined than the last to prove themselves the true guardian of the sacred flame. Now we have a franchise that no longer has any idea what to do with itself. According to Variety, its producer Paramount has shelved the latest film trilogy, informally known as the “Kelvin-verse,” which starred Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock. What comes next is anyone’s guess.

Perhaps the most important question here is whether this ancient sci-fi epic is really suitable for the big screen at all. The latter films — 2009’s Star Trek , 2013’s Star Trek Into Darkness , and 2016’s Star Trek Beyond — have won critical acclaim, but have also been criticized by fans for trying to turn a utopian thought experiment about empathy, cooperation, and the dangers of militarism into a knockout space opera.

The JJ Abrams-led trilogy was well-acted, usually well-planned (except for the odd moment of Khan-related identity crisis midway through the film) and included some stunning scenes: the clip in which Kirk and his crew blow up a swarm of enemy drones, set to the soundtrack of the Beastie Boys’ Sabotage, has no equal in modern blockbuster cinema. And yet, here we are, 16 years later, and there’s not much to show other than a bunch of unused supplementary text – where Kirk’s father being inexplicably alive is briefly considered.

On the small screen, Pine and Quinto no longer play Kirk and Spock, as the Paramount+ Strange New Worlds saga harkens back unapologetically to the early Apollo-era optimism of the original series in the 1960s. (In fact, Kirk isn’t even captain of the Enterprise yet.) Could Strange New Worlds finally make it to the big screen? It’s more than possible, and the series cleverly blends the seriousness of the Shatner era with the swagger of modern streaming. However, it’s hard to imagine a show whose best moments involve Spock accidentally getting engaged during a beach vacation and an entire musical episode set entirely in space making it to the cinema without losing anything in the process.

Personally, I love the series, but trying to incorporate sweet emotional chaos into 120 minutes of a blockbuster show can backfire. So where else could Paramount look?

Variety’s report relies heavily on a supposed political shift in power at the studio, which has seen Top Gun: Maverick II, Call of Duty: The Movie and even a sequel to Days of Thunder being discussed, as Trump ally David Ellison’s new CEO looks to greenlight the kind of material red America loves. This approach doesn’t seem to make any sense at all for Star Trek, which made history with the first interracial kiss on mainstream American television and has been optimistically “woke” ever since. It’s hard to see how this sits alongside the studio’s roster of fighter plane obsessions and military patriotism.

The truth is, Star Trek has always represented a quiet form of rebellion. He has always been obsessed with the joys of interstellar coexistence and the power of cosmic diplomacy, turning moral dilemmas and sentient holograms demanding civil rights into prime-time drama. However, the optimism that once made the epic so radical now seems to have made it politically unfashionable. It’s the ultimate paradox: the only franchise that still believes in the future can’t find one for itself.