The original plan for Countdown

[Tosk]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

It's fantastic, best attitude to take - tear it all down and start again. The old stuff is still there but it allows something new and fresh to be created.

So you're saying that the 'destroy it all' approach would be better than what they eventually went with? In what way?

[JoeZhang]

Deranged Nasat wrote:

---

I think what ChristopherPike objects to is the "original plan" in which the old stuff wouldn't be there, because Earth (apparently) would have been destroyed alongside Romulus, and many characters would have been killed off.alongside it .

None of the 'old stuff' exists in any practical sense, nobody is going to be making a TV series or movie - when I say 'it still exists', I am referring to the only meaningful state in which old Trek exists - on box sets and reruns.

[JoeZhang]

Tosk wrote:

---

So you're saying that the 'destroy it all' approach would be better than what they eventually went with? In what way?

No I'm suggesting that it's better than the approach taken by many here where the old material is treated like it is a religious text that must be followed at all times and anything that differs from that approach must be resisted by the Talifans.

The actual outcome of such a worldview depends on what actually happens but the spirit is the right one.

ChristopherPike wrote:

---

I look forward to the opening of Star Wars Episode VII involving Han Solo getting brutally murdered. Lightsaber slash to the groin? Or a blaster shot to the face at close range? It's a sure fire way to honour all the old stuff that's had its day and needs to step aside for the young 'uns.

If it makes sense within the film, why not? If it was a good film, I wouldn't be bothered if the first scene of a new Star Wars film started with the original crew being gassed.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

None of the 'old stuff' exists in any practical sense, nobody is going to be making a TV series or movie - when I say 'it still exists', I am referring to the only meaningful state in which old Trek exists - on box sets and reruns.

I consider the novels a meaningful state in which the Prime-Trek continuity continues to exist. A vastly under-appreciated niche in the greater scheme of things, but meaningful to me at least.

[JoeZhang]

King Daniel wrote:

---

I consider the novels a meaningful state in which the Prime-Trek continuity continues to exist. A vastly under-appreciated niche in the greater scheme of things, but meaningful to me at least.

That's fair enough, I was really more thinking about TV/Film.

[ChristopherPike]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

None of the 'old stuff' exists in any practical sense, nobody is going to be making a TV series or movie - when I say 'it still exists', I am referring to the only meaningful state in which old Trek exists - on box sets and reruns.

Which just makes it worse still. Because being supervised by the new management, it would've played into the plot of the film, and could even be considered canon to a degree. That's not really looking out for the best interests of the old stuff.

They're not about to destroy the Earth or kill any of the main cast in this film's universe, so why fire off a devastating parting shot which achieves that in the original? Frustration at Paramount not allowing full creative freedom with their own project perhaps? I never thought I'd happy with any decisions under Leslie Moonves' CBS control (especially since that jerk landed us in the situation we're in) but since this has effectively protected the possibility of someday continuing in the original universe (however unlikely that may seem right now).

[Tosk]

Even if there is never any more live action 24th century Trek, I think none of us want the characters to "die" just because it's an easy shortcut to start over. We want them to go on adventuring, even if we can't see those adventures.

Plus, I too am loving the novels so those are the real deal for me.

[Christopher]

Oh, this is getting ridiculous. Trashing Abrams & co. for the decisions they did make is one thing, but trashing them for a preliminary idea they ultimately didn't use is just petty. Creations do not spring into being fully formed. It takes trial and error to work out the best approach, and lots of your favorite works of fiction probably had early drafts that would've disturbed or horrified you if they'd been made in that form. But they weren't. Because the creators thought about their ideas or talked them over with other people and had the flaws in the ideas pointed out to them. And there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you're too close to your ideas, you get caught up in following a creative thread, and you need someone else to look at it from the outside and show you that you've gone off track.

So it's just ridiculous to see this as evidence that the filmmakers have some kind of hate for the franchise or the fans. No. That's just paranoid. It's just the storytellers doing what storytellers do -- trying out possibilities, seeing where they lead and whether they work, and if they don't work, moving on to something else. This is just how creativity happens, and that's just as true of the works you love the most as it is of the ones you dislike. People have to be allowed to have bad ideas without being damned for it, because that's part of the process of trial and error that ultimately leads to good ideas. It's not wrong that they had this idea, because it was just an idea. The final decision is all that matters, and they decided not to go that route.

[Tosk]

It happened, we're talking about it. What's the big deal?

[Christopher]

The whole point is that it isn't a big deal, because it didn't happen. It was considered and rejected before it happened, just like countless other early-draft ideas that got replaced with better ones. What matters isn't that they had the idea, but that they realized it was the wrong idea.

[Tosk]

Yeah, and like every other idea that we hear about we're dissecting the hell out of it like the Trek nerds we are.

[Christopher]

Nothing wrong with dissecting the idea. The problem is the assumption ChristopherPike is making about the underlying motives -- that it's somehow evidence that Abrams & co. have a bad or contemptuous attitude toward the franchise or its fans. That's just not fair or valid, and it's based on a misunderstanding of how the creative process works. I'm simply trying to explain more about that process, to point out that it's hardly unusual for a creator to have an idea that turns out to be a bad one and ends up being discarded. If they'd actually done this in the final film, then maybe ChristopherPike would have reason to feel it was an affront to the fanbase. But since they decided not to do it after all, there's nothing to be offended by. People should be judged for what they ultimately choose to do, not for what they considered but rejected along the way. Few of us instantly understand the best decision right off the bat; we have to consider various options and decide which one works best.

[ChristopherPike]

I have a misunderstanding of the creative process then do I? Hmmm... I'll put aside my suspicion that I'm being talked down to here. Because even an uneducated person can probably gather creating something is a process that goes through many stages, where ideas end up removed before a finished article is reached. Even something that makes it as far as a final filmed script, doesn't necessarily mean that's how it plays out onscreen, once the editing process begins. Nero and the Narada, apparently wandering around for over 20 years, when they filmed scenes in which he's imprisoned at Rura Penthe is rather obvious proof of that.

brian577 wrote:

---

In a recent podcast a developer for Star Trek Online talks about Abrams wanting to do more than just blow up Romulus. Apparently Paramount stopped him, probably because they needed the prime universe intact for the game.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=575801

King Daniel wrote:

---

I've listened to a bit of it. 47:35 is then the Abrams stuff comes up, and it's about the Countdown comic. The guy says the original script for Countdown killed Worf, Picard and Riker and destroyed Earth, and it was them (Cryptic) saying how badly it would screw up their story for STO that got it changed.

^ Assuming this STO developer speaks truthfully and isn't just creating positive spin, about why we should be grateful their game exists... something I'll concede might be the case -- taken at face value, it seems like Abrams & co would've had absolutely no problem going through with it, had a third party not objected.

[ChristopherPike]

Having listened to podcast just now... rather than simply rely on their words interpreted in a report, it plays into a whole discussion about whether the Countdown comics are regarded as canon. It falls into the usual fan way of mixing opinion with fact. The developer regards them as canon, given they lead into the film... and are now set in the past for STO. But I'd suggest since neither Countdown or STO are live-action drama, then they aren't.

The whole problem is, that this discussion springs from talk about the destruction of Romulus and then snowballs from there, to include events in a comic... apparently without question simply because JJ Abrams' creative team are involved. Romulus being destroyed is now established in canon, because it happened onscreen and is attributed to the Prime universe from which both Spock and Nero came. Even if the Earth had also been destroyed and TNG characters killed in a comic, I wouldn't have been obliged to accept it as canon. And definitely not unreversable or capable of being totally disregarded by another tie-in product like books or comic or frankly whatever format needs them to exist in a future setting.

[Christopher]

ChristopherPike wrote:

---

I have a misunderstanding of the creative process then do I? Hmmm... I'll put aside my suspicion that I'm being talked down to here.

You're not. There's nothing shameful about not understanding a process you don't have direct experience with. I don't understand much about, say, auto repair or chemical engineering or stockbroking (is that a word?) or any number of things, so I could easily make incorrect assumptions about the significance of a given thing. And if someone who actually did that particular job tried to explain to me what its real significance (or lack of significance) was, I wouldn't feel talked down to, because I'd accept that they're the ones qualified to explain how it works. It doesn't make them better or smarter than me, just more familiar with that particular topic.

Assuming this STO developer speaks truthfully and isn't just creating positive spin, about why we should be grateful their game exists... something I'll concede might be the case -- taken at face value, it seems like Abrams & co would've had absolutely no problem going through with it, had a third party not objected.

I've listened to the relevant portion of the podcast now, and I don't think we can conclude that from what he said. He said that the game people complained about how the plan would scuttle the whole game, and then he said "So that got changed," but that "so" doesn't necessarily mean "as a direct result of our protests"; it could just be a conversational "so," in the sense of "then, subsequently" (as in "so then I said..."). In other words, they were worried, but then it got changed, so they didn't have to worry anymore.

After all, this guy is an employee of a licensee. He doesn't have firsthand knowledge of Bad Robot's decision-making; he only knows what he hears about it from his go-between (John Van Citters, I assume) at CBS licensing. So we can't make any conclusions from this account about why Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci changed their minds.

Now, my own insights into the process are just as thirdhand as his, but here's what I know:

• It was an earlier draft of the film script that had the more destructive version of 24th-century events. Later revisions toned it down. (And yes, it was going to be in the film, not just in Countdown. Countdown took its lead from the future events referenced in the film script, basically just fleshing them out and adding TNG characters to them.)
• Kurtzman & Orci wrote the screenplay. As director, it would've been Abrams who was responsible for later revisions, particularly since the writers' strike limited the opportunities for the script to be revised during shooting.
• Orci is a huge Trek fan. Kurtzman is a moderate fan.

So the idea to totally trash the Prime universe most likely came, not from Abrams himself, but from K&O, who are fans of the franchise. And it was probably Abrams who changed it in favor of the less destructive approach. At least, that's how I've always assumed it happened (though, again, my interpretation is as subjective as the interviewee's). So I don't think it's likely that the idea was meant as some kind of "middle finger" to the franchise. I think, based on what I know about the original plan, that it was just meant to make the stakes for Spock Prime as high as they could possibly be. Maybe they just got so caught up in creating a big enough existential threat to drive events that they overlooked the fact that Spock Prime failed to avert that threat in his home timeline. And once that was pointed out to them, they changed it, or Abrams changed it. That happens sometimes. Sometimes you get so caught up in part of an idea that you don't see how it fits into the greater whole, or so preoccupied with the mechanics and details of an idea that you lose perspective on whether it's really a good idea. This is why writers have beta readers and editors and producers and the like to double-check their work.