Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Turd Ferguson, May 8, 2013.
There is no evidence whatever to support that and a good deal to contradict it.
The writers don't have to cast them, build sets, do FX, etc... Your imagination can fill in the blanks and make it 1969 all over again. Total apples and oranges. Plus, TOS novel book sales wouldn't come close to a new TV series. It's niche.
Anything's possible, but not necessarily plausible or desirable. I prefer my Enterprise not to be a submarine and Spock not to have Vader "Noooo!!!!!" moments of farce.
But that's not because it's big. It's because it wasn't written well enough.
I totally agree with that, other than the fact that Trek is so broad that to do anything remotely like it will attract claims that it's Trek with the serial numbers filed off.
Well, take Khan for instance. He was in one episode of TOS. Trek II is what turned him into a pop-culture icon. He simply did not occupy that space until that movie elevated him to that level.
So all you really need to do is have some clue as to how things BECOME pop culture icons in the first place, and go ahead and make them.
The argument that any Trek spinoff show has to be about garbage scow captains is ridiculous.
Certainly Gene did his best to establish new icons on TNG. And certainly he was partially successful, as Picard's facepalm dominating the internet attests to. So what's the big deal? Go out there and make new characters that are interesting.
Dear Starship Fleet Captain,
I respectfully disagree. Event pictures make themselves ridiculous by their very nature, requiring teasing of the picture years in advance (as in the present case), which all by itself I find off-putting.
Having smaller movies at more frequent intervals - even at the risk of them becoming "captain kirks" - would be worthwhile because no single movie would be such a big risk, would have so much money riding on it as to almost require a reference to a prior big hit in the Star Trek universe. For that reason alone a Star Trek event picture is self-defeating in terms of story. It's evidently the same impulse that drew Old Spock back in last time. For analogous reasons, the original Star Trek Big Event Movie (TMP) turned out to be a virtual rewrite of "The Changeling."
This simply underscores the finesse (accidental, perhaps, in some respects, given the various script ideas that were eventually combined) exerted in the making of TWoK. It too depended on a preexisting story but was able to be up front about it, possibly by virtue of incorporating the real-life passage of 15 years' time into the story. (By contrast, in TMP the crew has evidently never encountered Nomad; in Nemesis they've never come across Lore; etc.) Also TWoK was made fairly cheaply, even taking into account a portion of the initial cost of a few scenes borrowed from TMP; a more expensive movie requires heavier, costlier, downright oppressive marketing.
With respect to "Each TOS episode was an event for me when I was a child. Sadly Star Trek turned into this routine background noise during the 90 and early Naughties": I don't disagree with any of this. There were many TNG episodes that felt like events as well, at least to me. (I would even go so far as to say that most episodes of the post-TNG series became "background noise" in proportion to their musical scores becoming bland, featureless, and non-nutritious, but that's another story.)
I doubt they would reboot so soon. So let's keep the same crew. Make sure Kirk has grown up. Just forget about the Spock and Uhura fling. It's inappropriate anyway, because he's a senior officer. Kirk, Spock and Bones are now a team similar to their TOS counterparts.
Enterprise (Hopefully refitted to Look better than the current incarnation) has just escaped some disaster and arrives in a distant alien star system. Like the episode tomorrow is yesterday, the ship stops in the upper atmosphere of a planet with two factions in a tense cold war(Think 1962). One of the factions is on the threshold of warp drive. Enterprise is severely damaged. No warp(And get rid of the new warp phenomenon. No Dune Space folds) or sub space communication. A part of the ship breaks away and takes out a building of the faction without warp drive. This faction believes the other side attacked them. They retaliate even though the other side denies it raising the possibility for all out war.
Once in orbit, the undetected Enterprise's crew sees the effect they've had. But they need to recover some technology which survived impact on the building. So they beam down disguised as natives, but are captured as enemy spies and later rescued. This heightens the tensions further. The side without warp tech detects Enterprise and believes its a secret warship created by their enemies and launches a full scale attack. The other side responds. So how does Kirk and crew save the day.
What would be the point of that specific story?
As much as I loathe Abramstrek, the scripts, while being incoherent messes, do have a point. Abramstrek 1 was about getting the gang together with a minor in-universe justification for the reboot. Abramstrek 2 is about putting the gang and Kirk's command ability to the test, making them ready for the 5-year mission.
Stories like that in the quote are fine for a TV show where you have 26 episodes per season, one episode per week. But is the story you come up with really worth to fill those rare 2 hours every 4 years?
Star Trek is supposed to reflect important issues we're dealing with today. Well, the building being taken out, think 911. The threat of nuclear war. Trust issues between different cultures with advanced technology. I enjoyed 13 days, even though we know how it ends. So you still have Sci Fi , action and FX and drama. But you get way from single villians. Now the villian is war.
The old Trek universe is a thing of the past, love it, respect it, but build on it's beginnings...definitely! JJ did some good things with his take on Trek, like the Kelvin for instance. In my film(s) all of Trek would be on the table for use. The Chuckverse (if I may) would be a little more beef and a little less flash. (Having nothing to do with lens flair).
The story(s) visuals would be new and at the same time the audience would be comfortable with what they see. Again taking page from Roddenberry, we would not revisit earth, instead we would be "out there" somewhere, at work. From JJ we will borrow the Kelvin-ish style design for our principal ship in the story. Pacing must be brisk, but so fast that the audience is lost along the way.
Our story begins at a federation starbase not far from... oh say...Risa. The story centers around a young female Commander who is about to receive her first vessel from none other than Admiral Nogura (the chief of Star Fleet Operations). Who is in the area on an inspection tour of the sector.
Our Commander anxiously awaits her first command, which she anticipates to be modern "up to date" ship of the line. Instead she draws "The Bucket", the tired and old U.S.S. Langley. Her mission? Proceed to Sherman's planet, take command of the Langley and skipper her back to the yard at Utopia Planita for survey and decommissioning...
Still, why don't you demand of them that they exert a little more creative effort and create a new set of characters, a new crew for each new novel?
Don't you think there are reasons why people like to go back to those original TOS characters?
Your Enterprise, of course, already did operate as a "submarine" and Spock had more than one emotional outburst.
That's just silly.
Nonsense. That's like saying any future Sherlock Holmes project should *not* include Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, but completely new characters. The British SHERLOCK series is a good modern take on Arthur Conan Doyle's character.
Sticking with Star Trek's main characters doesn't by necessity equate to being uncreative anymore than starting a series with a new captain named Janeway on a new ship called Voyager makes that series in any way "creative." One of the few things Abrams has done right has been to go back to Kirk and Spock. No one but a handful of Trek geeks is going to care about yet another captain, another crew, another starship.
A proper producer and a good writer could come up with a fresh new take on Star Trek without jettisoning the main characters the way the SHERLOCK producers did. Hell, maybe BBC should do the next Trek series.
I guess we're all out of ideas.
They should get that guy in Star Trek somehow!
Some of these analogies are just plain "off".
Kirk, Spock, and McCoy got their start on television with actors that became synonymous with the role.
They are not comic book heroes like Batman, Superman, or literary figures like Sherlock Holmes. Sure, you can try to lump them all together, but it's not a perfect analogy.
So when it comes to novels, you're talking about taking something that was originally visual, that is embedded in our heads already, and going to print, rather than the reverse, like with Batman, or James Bond. When you read a novel, you get to use your own imagination to build the production design. Unless the author is writing in lens-flares, you can make it as authentic as you want to the original. There isn't as much threat to authenticity vs. a reboot.
Does it then surprise you that some people have a hard time accepting reboots?
Then on top of this the creator (who should know what he's doing) saw fit to continue with TNG rather than Phase II, and we went on to have several spin-off series that all did pretty well. Sure, it reached a point of diminishing returns, but to completely shrug off anything but the holy trinity of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy ignores the long TNG-era run, which included theatrical hits like First Contact.
You're saying that anything post-TOS has no pop-culture resonance whatsoever? That's not true at all. Is it true that TOS has the most resonance? Yes. Which is why it's being done, because the bean-counters go for the lowest-common-denominator only. But in the process they ignore huge swaths of the Star Trek universe that has been built over the years.
Sure, but the franchise is almost half a century old. Maybe it's time to do something besides just reboot and plow over the same ground according to whatever the current popcorn-movie trends may require.
Flying through an amoeba and Spock being under duress through things like Pon Farr, a mind-meld, or a virus, are not the same.
I've been watching since 1975 and have had no issue with the reboot beyond some story elements I feel didn't work. There are many old school folks here who have no issue with the reboot.
I recall the novel Traitor Winds being really good fun. They could have tweaked that story for NuTrek with similr results but that turns Trek into conspiracy thriller. That might have been good fun!
After having seen INTO DARKNESS, I see the problem now. It is not JJ Abrams. In fact cinematography, direction, set design, effects etc look superb. Never looked better... no, it is the authors. Orci and Kurtzman are simply unable to write an original story... at least to the end.
The first hour of the film works and you are about to forgive stupid plotholes and logical mistakes simply because it is so dense... sadly, after 60 minutes the film simply copys TWOK and that is where it falls apart.
I would defineatly keep Abrams (lense flares decreased in this film, the camera works now really good, seems they cured the cameraman's Parkinson since 2009, or at least treated it accordingly (since you cannot cure that disease).
Throw out Orci and Kurtzman and get someone of the calliber of the Nolan brothers to write TREK 3, and everyone will be happy.
In fact if it was not for the second half of the film, I would really rate it as a good solid Sci-Fi Action film... and I really hated almost everything about TREK 09.
But there is hope again...
I would go the route of a game like "Judgment Rites" or "A Final Unity".
Add an archeological adventure for example, a race towards a huge discovery, a competition with Klingons for example, where the audience first thinks they are the bad guys and then in the end, let them work together with Kirk and his crew to solve a problem (in best TREK tradition).
There does not need to be an essential bad guy in the film. Mix it with cool locations (XI and ID have them already), add some action scenes (Kirk and Spck getting intel from hostile party, having a spy on board or something) and voila.
Just avoid: Time travel, remakes of iconic scenes and plot holes. It ain't that hard. If I had more time I would sit down and write a draft or two.
Truth. Some TBBS members seem determined to stamp out any criticism of NuTrek.
Well said. The production has "Star Trek" slapped on it, but that is where the similarities end, as the heart of the ST message has been replaced by the immature, flash over substance sci-fi sledgehammered into the culture by George Lucas and in more recent years, Michael Bay.
It seems clear that imaginative stories--once the very thing ST used to be famous for--is not the priority, but spectacle, and looking more like something Tom Cruise or Will Smith would head up.
To be fair Trek movies always lean more towards action and adventure than the average television story but I totally agree that the current movies lean too far into this direction.
I'd also keep Abrams to direct, but throw out Orci and Kurtzman. They should have at least put someone smart next to them, an experienced Trek writer for example. Someone to tell them "you're lazy, we'll need to come up with a proper solution to this problem".
As for story... I'd keep the actors. Movie starts with your typical action scene, explosions and what not. Set pieces blow up, the whole nine yards. Then after the battle ends (maybe with the death of all heroes) the holodeck gets deactivated. ST11 and 12 have happened... on the holodeck. Some sort of holonovel/Starfleet training exercise. The characters, as we met them, sort of are real, just the names are different. It's a new crew. They are being congratulated for having successfully beta tested a new way of final exams from Starfleet Academy, a 1-2 month holodeck simulation meant to test cadets to their fullest.
They go to their mission of doing cartography or whatever. Cut. We're introduced to the villain of the week (this could happen as the first scene too, or it could be left out until a flashback/flashforward happens). Again, shit blows up, alien planet fights for survival, is being destroyed by someone evil. Only one ship survives, captained by the villain. It's some time in the future. Captain is in fact a scientist who was doing temporal research (yes, I'm recycling a Voyager plot now...) who just wants to restore his planet, and has found out that if "Kirk" hadn't been born, his grand grand grand son wouldn't have destroyed his home world for greed and stuff.
So he decides to go back in time to kill "Kirk". Fighting ensues (that's what people want...) with the "Enterprise" crew being confused what the heck is going on but defending themselves, luckily they start to communicate with "Kirk" giving a rousing speech with lots of wild gesturing, and somehow they figure out a way to end the war, maybe by castrating "Kirk".
Or perhaps it was an idea that "Kirk" had, a movement that "Kirk" started, a philosophy, that ultimately went wrong and led to the destruction of countless worlds. Maybe it was a book that he will write, maybe it is his way of life, have to figure out something plausible that can't be easily undone by a vow (or maybe the villain captain wouldn't accept it). So to stop it, "Kirk" has to die. Maybe the baddies give the Enterprise crew one hour to say goodbye/surrender "Kirk" for execution, and "Kirk" is considering and pondering if what the other side wants isn't sensible. Can he be held responsible for an idea that he sparked? Does it even matter? Doesn't the lives of many outweight one live? The Enterprise crew could come up with a flaw in the enemies shields, making it possible to destroy their vessel. But "Kirk" says no.
Basically it's the classic would you kill Hitler's father story/would Hitler's father kill himself/his child had he known what monster he created. Not exactly original, I admit, but at least there is something to think about.
In terms of structure (and rethinking the mess above) I would have the introduction done in the first 15 minutes, with the revelation it was just a "dream". Then soon thereafter the fighting begins, "Enterprise" is basically lost, all that still works (barely) is the life support. But the bad guys think it's only fair to let the Enterprise crew know why they were attacked, and to give them the chance of survival. After all they only want "Kirk". The pondering part, with different parts of the crew working on different solutions in parallel could set in after maybe one hour, and take maybe 30-45 minutes. It could be done quite tense with ship systems failing and the ultimatum looming over them. And then the conclusion, which the enemy may or may not accept.
That would be the basic 5 minutes of thinking + then some typing and brainstorming to come up with plot. Could probably be fleshed out in the hands of a good writer (which I am most certainly not).
Or maybe just do a NC-17 movie set on Risa.
As for the thing that you'd have to dumb down a movie to get popular/good actors? Not really. Either a big paycheck, or do a project that is challenging, cool and interesting. Brilliant actors are willing to work for next to nothing, if it is NOT a stupid lowest common denominator movie. Things they are really interested in (IMHO those really good actors tend to be rather smart too). Btw., Vin Diesel? His first movie was written, directed, scored and produced by him, it got played at Cannes and impressed Spielberg so much that he wrote Diesel a role in Saving Private Ryan. Sadly Vin Diesel is typecast for a certain kind of action role these days, but hopefully one day he gets the chance to show off what he really can do.
Separate names with a comma.