Do you want ongoing novels on the Kelvin Universe

[JD]

I've seen so many roles recast, and played by multiple actors over the years, that I'm not really bothered by it any more, even when it is actors who I really liked.
Unless the actors are playing themselves, I don't really think there are any roles that can only be played by one actor.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed, if the 24th century novels aren't allowed to touch the destruction of Romulus (which we know to be the case) then it stands to reason there can't be a Kelvin novel for similar reasons.

Although, a Kelvin novel was once pitched nearly six years ago, clearly nothing came of it.

I thought the books could use stuff from the Kelvin timeline movies, they just couldn't set any books there?

 

[Greg Cox]

Gotta disagree. I don't think you're doing TOS--or most any fiction--a favor by treating it as a sacred icon, to be set in stone, wrapped in plastic, and kept safe from any alteration. Classic stories and characters get revamped and reworked and retold every generation or so. Keeps things fresh and interesting.

I'd rather TOS and its characters remain alive and vital and part of pop culture, rather than gather dust on a shelf, "treasured" and preserved in amber. (How's that for a mixed metaphor.)

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Christopher]

Unless the actors are playing themselves, I don't really think there are any roles that can only be played by one actor.

There's a thought. Has there ever been a case where an actor playing oneself was then replaced by a different actor playing them? The closest thing I can think of is something where an actor played a pastiche or fictionalized version of themselves that was later recast, like the Scooby-Doo character Vincent Van Ghoul, based on and originally played by Vincent Price, and later reprised by Maurice LaMarche. But someone actually playing themselves and then someone else replacing them in the role of themselves... that'd be pretty wild.

I thought the books could use stuff from the Kelvin timeline movies, they just couldn't set any books there?

We've been able to allude indirectly to a few details here and there, but I'm not sure where the line is.

Gotta disagree. I don't think you're doing TOS--or most any fiction--a favor by treating it as a sacred icon, to be set in stone, wrapped in plastic, and kept safe from any alteration. Classic stories and characters get revamped and reworked and retold every generation or so. Keeps things fresh and interesting.

I'd rather TOS and its characters remain alive and vital and part of pop culture, rather than gather dust on a shelf, "treasured" and preserved in amber. (How's that for a mixed metaphor.)

I'm reminded of the saying, "A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."

 

[David Strickhouser]

May I remark as a "newbie" that it is a true pleasure to see Star Trek novel authors commenting in this thread. Even if there is difference of opinion, it is great to see all views and constructive criticisms..
Continued success to all of you!

 

[Greg Cox]

There's a thought. Has there ever been a case where an actor playing oneself was then replaced by a different actor playing them? The closest thing I can think of is something where an actor played a pastiche or fictionalized version of themselves that was later recast, like the Scooby-Doo character Vincent Van Ghoul, based on and originally played by Vincent Price, and later reprised by Maurice LaMarche. But someone actually playing themselves and then someone else replacing them in the role of themselves... that'd be pretty wild.

Not quite the same thing, but Martin Landau won an Oscar for playing Bela Lugosi, and so did Cate Blanchett for playing Katherine Hepburn. And there are any number of instances where modern actors played other actors in biopics: Chaplin, Gable and Lombard, Lon Chaney Sr., Joan Crawford, and, of course, Marilyn Monroe more times than one can count . ...

There was also that new THREE STOOGES movie a few years ago, where you had new actors imitating the original Stooges.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

There's a thought. Has there ever been a case where an actor playing oneself was then replaced by a different actor playing them? The closest thing I can think of is something where an actor played a pastiche or fictionalized version of themselves that was later recast, like the Scooby-Doo character Vincent Van Ghoul, based on and originally played by Vincent Price, and later reprised by Maurice LaMarche. But someone actually playing themselves and then someone else replacing them in the role of themselves... that'd be pretty wild.

Lewis Black has a bit in his stand-up act about auditioning for a part in a TV pilot for CBS. The role was inspired by him and used several lines from his act... and CBS went with someone else for the part.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Christopher]

^Sure, but that's just playing an actor who played a different character. I'm talking about a case where an actor played themselves, by name, and later got replaced in the same series by a different actor playing the earlier actor. For example, imagine if, say, the producers of The Monkees had fired, ohh, Peter Tork and replaced him with a different actor who was still playing the character of Peter Tork. Or if Wil Wheaton playing himself on The Big Bang Theory were replaced by a different actor playing Wil Wheaton.

I'm not sure the Three Stooges example entirely counts, because "Larry, Moe, and Curly" were the stage names of Louis Feinberg and Moses and Jerome Horwitz. So they weren't exactly playing themselves, though it's pretty close.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Yes, I know that's what you meant. I was just pointing out the closest example I could think of. And it was just a random character. It was a character based on him.

 

[Greg Cox]

Do the new Colonel Sanders commercials count?

Or what about the old Beatles Saturday morning cartoon,where you have voice actors playing fictionalized versions of John, George, Paul and Ringo?

 

[WebLurker]

I never quite got the logic of it, though. While the comics' and movies' version was that the mutagen made animals anthropomorphic, the '87 version was that the mutagen hybridized a human or animal with whatever other organism was touching them at the time of exposure. So the turtles turned humanoid because they were touched by Hamato, but Hamato turned into a rat even though he was touching the turtles at the same time?

Although I guess the sequence is Hamato touches rat -> Hamato steps in mutagen -> Hamato touches mutagen-exposed turtles. So he would've already been primed to turn into a rat before he touched the turtles, but he was still human at the time he touched them. I guess that's how it works. But it confused me for decades.

Yeah, the '80s cartoon kind of flubbed the accident, since Splinter gets the mutagen by picking up the oozed turtles, despite the present-day Splinter's narration saying that the victims take on the characteristics of the last thing they touched. I always kind dismissed it as a minor animation error (the show did have its share of them). The 2012 show, on the other hand, came up with a chain of events where the accident and results made more sense.

As I said, the '03 series was extremely faithful to the comics, directly adapting many of their storylines and one-shot stories, even though it didn't recreate the original black-and-white look. The first movie also drew as much on the comics as on the cartoon.

Didn't the '03 series also reimagine Shredder in a way that no other version has? I was aware that some stories were adaptations of Mirage stories (like that one about Donnie meeting a cartoonist who found a magic pen), but the shows never seemed as dark as the original comics went. The series also went more wacky and colorful with the Fast Forward and Back to the Sewers episodes, which has always been the providence of the '80s-style elements of the franchise.

The original movie did have both Mirage and '80s elements, but those were the only versions around. Also, the more notable elements, like April being a reporter and the Turtles characterizations were in line with the cartoon (except for Raph). I also seem to recall that the tagline was "This ain't no cartoon." The Mirage elements seemed to be in the backstory and darker take on the Foot Clan, along with a couple story beats (North Hampton).

To a large extent, yes, but I think the recent "Trans-Dimensional Turtles" showed how much is different too. Raphael is the barely-controlled hothead he's been in every version since the first movie, rather than the "cool but rude" character from the '87 series.

True, he is an exception, although if I recall correctly, the early '80s episodes had him a lot more short-tempered then the later ones. Also, the sense of sarcasm he got in the '80s seems to have stuck with future versions.

The Kraang took their name and their evil alignment from the '87 Krang, but in most respects they're the Utrom (and we now know they're literally the Utrom).

And '12 cartoon established that '87 Krang was an Utrom from the '12 Kraang faction who was banished to the '80s cartoon dimension. Wait, is there any importance to that? (Actually I though that both the rectcon that the Kraang were an Utrom faction and that '80s Krang was a '12 Kraang were really cool ideas.)

Baxter is back to his original African-American ethnicity instead of the redhead of the '87 show.

But his personality isn't that much the same (the character is intended to be sillier, like the '80s, and he becomes the fly; the original died through cyborging or something, right?)

April isn't a reporter.

But there are a host of in-joke references to her '80s incarnation (Ho Chan mistakes her shirt for a jumpsuit briefly in "A China Town Ghost Story," the '80s April's voice actress plays her mom in "Burried Secrets," April wears an actual yellow jumpsuit during the Fugitoid episodes).

Karai is included. "Turtles in Space" happened. Renet and Savanti Romero showed up. And so on. The '87 influence is certainly present, but I don't think it outweighs the other influences as much as you suggest. The current show is drawing promiscuously on just about everything before it (even tossing in a couple of Easter-egg references to Venus from the reviled The Next Mutation).

I agree they're taking stuff from everything. However, the tone is far closer to the '80s than anything else (it is allowed to go darker, like the '03 cartoon, too, and does have its own identity, but I think this cartoon was meant to be the sort of thing that adults who grew up watching the '80s cartoon could enjoy watching with their own kids first and foremost.) That feature, the tone, is why I think the '80s are the dominate influence on this show. After all, the '80s cartoon used a lot of stuff from the Mirage comics, but no one's suggesting that the cartoon is a lot like the comics because of that.

I think the IDW comics (what I've seen of them, at least) are a lot closer to the they do everything TMNT iteration that you're thinking of. The tone is closer to the source material, and they take stuff from everywhere; you got Krang from the '80s, alongside a more Mirage/'03 cartoon-like Baxter Stockman, with Pigeon Pete and a Metalhead from '12, a Shredder from the Middle Ages (like the '03 cartoon), etc. That one, I think, has an even balance of everything, with no clear dominate influence.

What about Baxter is from the '12 version specifically? I haven't seen the new movies.

His personality is closer in line with the goofier version in the '12 cartoon that the more arrogant blowhard we got in the '03 series or the milquetoast from the '80s. (Also forgot that Commander Krang seems to call his species the Kraang in his opening scene, unless he was referring to himself in the third person.)

Still, it doesn't surprise me that they'd draw on that version. It's a nostalgia thing -- the generation that grew up with that version is in charge of making the movies now, and they're trying to recapture their childhood. It's the same reason we're getting a feature-film reboot of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers even though there have been nearly 20 different incarnations of the Power Rangers since then.

Didn't know they were doing Power Rangers movie. Interesting.

Other than Raph, were the comics characters really that different from their usual screen portrayal? Leo as the serious, driven leader, Donnie as the techie, Mikey as the clown?

I will admit having very minimal knowledge and experience with the Mirage comics, so I could be very well mistaken. But I understood the original personalities to be less exaggerated. Case in point, I understood that the Mirage Mikey was simply the most easy-going, and not quite the wacky party animal who sometimes leaves common sense behind.

Another example, both the '03 and Nick TV shows adapted a Mirage story in which the Turtles get an amnestic Triceraton to help them on a mission, which ends up with the Triceraton dying. I understood it that the more morally ambiguous Mirage turtles would take advantage of an enemy that way, but it was out of the character for the '03 Turtles, who fit the more heroic mold that the '08s set for them. The Nick version, "Dinosaur Seen in Sewers!" went out of its way to address in-episode the moral implications of using Zog, finding a balance to have the questionable decision made by characters who were supposed to be better than that (loved that episode).

One thing from the '87 series that definitely has not been retained by any other version was the insistence on always, always referring to the Turtles by their full names. Every other version has used Leo, Mikey, Raph, and Don/Donnie, while that one never used nicknames at all, which was pretty bizarre.

I never noticed that. That's really interesting.

I wouldn't agree with that. I think the Abrams movies capture the characters quite well, and STID at least made an effort to address the philosophy (it nicely captured the "Arena"/"Devil in the Dark" dynamic of Kirk initially wanting to respond aggressively, rejecting Spock's urging to act more peacefully, and then choosing the peaceful route when the crunch came). Its main misfire was its clumsy rehash of the TWOK death scene. I think that part was so ill-conceived that it overshadows the rest in people's minds and colors their perception of the whole thing.

I had problems with the characterizations since the '09 movie. So, IMHO, while the TWOK death scene remix was not a good idea, it's not the main reason some of us don't feel like these movies are authentic Star Trek installments. I also felt like the movie's greater commentary (use of drone warfare, reaction to terrorist attacks) was perfunctory. Rather than being themes throughout the movie, they were just there to trigger the action scenes. (I also think that redoing Kirk's story arc from the first movie was not the best call and that resurrecting him a couple scenes after he died, much less resurrecting him period, really underwhelmed his story.)

You're badly misremembering the facts here. The "Supreme Court" actually prided itself on having a mix of both dedicated fans (Robert Orci, Damon Lindelof), moderate fans (Alex Kurtzman), and non-fans (J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk), so that they could have parallax between both the fan and the non-fan perspective and hopefully balance the appeal to both audiences.

I forgot that Orci and Kurtzman were fans. I've never heard that the reboot team wanted to have people across the board before. All the publicity I was hearing at the time was that how great it was that Abrams wasn't a fan, that they were going to be able to make Star Trek cool for the first time, so on and so forth.

It really felt like they were ashamed of the franchise they were working on. Had they made a bigger deal of the idea that they wanted to make a movie that was accessible to everyone, rather than tooting their horn that this was Star Trek for the non-Trekkies, that would've been better PR for those of us who were wary of the artistic license being taken.

And let's not forget that Nicholas Meyer also prided himself on being a non-fan...

I think Meyer kind of lucked out. Also, weren't the movies he worked on already set on a general story idea (and assumed to be continuations of the TV show) when he came onboard? Abrams was basically given the keys and told to do what he wanted.

I think that "mixed reception" is greatly overstated. Look at the quality ratings for the Trek movies on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and the like, and both Abrams movies are consistently among the highest-rated films of the entire series.

In retrospect, I didn't state it very well. I've never really found TMNT fans that don't like the '12 cartoon (now they have to exist somewhere, but they don't seem to have much of a presence), but it's not unheard of to find Trekkies that hate the Abrams movies. From my limited personal experience, non-Trekkies generally like the reboot a lot, while pre-existing fans either don't care for it, or say it's fine, but not as good as the original stuff. (I've also read the opposite, too.) At the end of the day, I guess it probably means nothing, but I just find it interesting that TMNT '12 seems to be more universally loved by the TMNT fanbase, than the Abramsverse is by the Trekkie fanbase, despite both extensively re-imagining their respective mythologies. Why does one have fewer critics?

General audiences mostly approve of the new films, and a lot of Trek fans do as well, but a lot of the haters make an ongoing effort to dominate or monopolize the conversation and propagate the illusion that their perspective is the majority view. And just in general, the critics of a thing tend to make more noise than the people who are satisfied with it, which can skew perceptions of public opinion.

Good point. I have seen this happen in the Star Wars fanbase in regards to fans who were unhappy with the decision to reboot the publishing line of tie-ins to be consistent with the new movies and cartoons. It's gotten pretty ugly, far more than anything I've seen with those of us who wish the Trek reboot had never happened.

How is that not like other action films? Only about a million of those are driven by their main characters' obsession with revenge on the bad guys.

Whereas I think the plots are written to serve the characters. The first film is about Kirk finding direction in life and he and Spock going from adversaries to tentative friends. Nero and the plot he sets in motion are underdeveloped and secondary, because they aren't as important to the writers as the relationships and emotions. (Which is common in Abrams's work. The plotting in Alias was often ridiculous and mainly served as a backdrop for the ongoing character drama. Mission: Impossible III was the first movie in the series that gave Ethan Hunt an actual personality of any kind, but its plot was largely a means to the end of advancing Ethan's character arc, and the script had so little interest in the Macguffin driving the plot that it didn't even bother to explain what it was.) STID is about Kirk learning humility and earning the captaincy that he somewhat lucked into the previous time.

And yes, there's plenty of action, but it's handled in a deeply character-focused way. When the Kelvin is blowing up, we're focused on George and Winona and their tearful goodbye. When the Narada is blowing up, we're focused on Nero's quiet moment of grief and surrender, with the direction deliberately parallelling his end to George's end and creating sympathy rather than going the usual action-movie route of treating the villain's death as something cool and celebratory. No matter how big the action gets, Abrams is always focused on the people at the center of it.

I did love the Kelvin scenes, but I don't think the other scenes really clicked as character-driven. Maybe I'm missing something

So I'm amazed that you'd think Abrams makes character secondary. Character is the thing he does best by a huge margin, and it's always been the clear priority of his work overall, frequently to the detriment of plot and logic. It's the success of his character work that makes me willing to forgive the absurdities of his plotting and the excesses of his action.

Sometimes I suspect that people who criticize Abrams's work on the movies have never seen his work anywhere else. Because a lot of the things they claim about his work are just diametrically opposed to reality. (Like when they accuse him of marginalizing women, even though almost everything he's ever done besides ST, M:I, and Lost has been female-centric.)[/QUOTE]

To be fair, Star Trek (2009) was my first Abrams movie, so it wasn't exactly a best first impression. On the other hand, I liked his Star Wars: The Force Awakens an awful lot. The attention to detail was what I'd been wanting in his Trek movies. To be frankly honest, I that that that movie succeeded on every level that the Abramsverse did not.

For instance, I think Force Awakens pulled its characters off well and managed to make the conflicts work as character-driven. For comparison, both Force Awakens and Into Darkness have a climax with the hero fighting the villain (Rey and Kylo Ren; Spock and Khan), who's hurt or killed someone the hero cares about (Finn and Kirk). However, the Into Darkness climax felt like the drama was overshadowed by the stunts of the chase and the fancy effects, while Force Awakens has an awesome set piece for the duel, but keeps the characters front and center. They don't seem to get lost in the "cool" action.

That's kind of the thing. I'm probably doing a very bad job of explaining it, but in this case, the Trek movie characters seem to get lost in the shuffle of events and stunts that seem to be added just because "it'd be cool." I don't feel like I know any of them, Kirk and Spock don't feel like friends (even though Abrams wisely made the effort to build that rather than just starting there), and I don't feel like I'm given much reason as to why I should care for them (beyond them being the heroes).

Conversely, Force Awakens has left most of their character's backgrounds a mystery and chooses to have Rey and Finn become friends right away with little development (although there is some that happens after the fact). But, in this case, I think the characters work. I understood what they wanted out in life right off the bat. In the case of the Rey and Finn characters, there's no question that they're friends.

I don't know why the extreme difference, given that the same guy directed both and is, in theory, a master as characterizations. But, despite one more movie under their belts and more backstory, Abrams' Trek characters feel flatter, less developed, and a lot less alive than his Star Wars characters, who have only one movie and very minimal backstories.

 

[Christopher]

Do the new Colonel Sanders commercials count?

Hmm, I suppose so. And didn't they recast Orville Redenbacher too?

Or what about the old Beatles Saturday morning cartoon,where you have voice actors playing fictionalized versions of John, George, Paul and Ringo?

Technically, but I was thinking more about it happening within the same TV series or movie series.

Didn't the '03 series also reimagine Shredder in a way that no other version has? I was aware that some stories were adaptations of Mirage stories (like that one about Donnie meeting a cartoonist who found a magic pen), but the shows never seemed as dark as the original comics went.

Sure, but it certainly drew far, far more heavily on the comics than it did on the '87 cartoon. That's my point -- that the '87 cartoon hasn't been the exclusive touchstone for everything since. Later adaptations have both drawn on other sources and introduced their own innovations. If anything, it's followed the usual pattern -- first, we get adaptations that try to distance themselves from the iconic series as much as possible and leave their own mark, and then, years later, we get adaptations that are informed by nostalgia for the iconic version and draw more on its elements. So we're getting a lot more '87 elements revived in recent TMNT adaptations than we did in the previous decade or two.

Although the original movie series was a bit schizoid about it. The first movie consciously contrasted itself with the cartoon, going for a darker and more comics-faithful tone, while still drawing on some elements like April's reporter gig. But the second movie went for a lighter, goofier tone more like the cartoon, toned down the violence, and introduced Tokka and Rahzar as a sort of surrogate Bebop and Rocksteady. The third movie was somewhere in between. So there's a blend of trying to be more like the comics and trying to be more like the show.

The series also went more wacky and colorful with the Fast Forward and Back to the Sewers episodes, which has always been the providence of the '80s-style elements of the franchise.

In tone, yes, they were pushed in a more juvenile direction, but that's just an aspect of kids' TV in general. They didn't draw on actual characters or ideas created for the '87 series.

And '12 cartoon established that '87 Krang was an Utrom from the '12 Kraang faction who was banished to the '80s cartoon dimension. Wait, is there any importance to that? (Actually I though that both the rectcon that the Kraang were an Utrom faction and that '80s Krang was a '12 Kraang were really cool ideas.)

The latter doesn't work, though, because the '87 Krang was consistently portrayed as a formerly humanoid alien who'd had his body disintegrated as punishment for his crimes, and who was constantly pining about the loss of his body and his desire for a replacement. So he can't have been an Utrom, which are brainlike aliens to begin with.

I agree they're taking stuff from everything. However, the tone is far closer to the '80s than anything else (it is allowed to go darker, like the '03 cartoon, too, and does have its own identity, but I think this cartoon was meant to be the sort of thing that adults who grew up watching the '80s cartoon could enjoy watching with their own kids first and foremost.) That feature, the tone, is why I think the '80s are the dominate influence on this show.

I just don't put as much weight on tone as you do. Yes, as I said, this adaptation calls back the first cartoon more than its predecessor did (even using a very similar theme song), but there's so much more to it than that. I'm not interested in reductionistic attempts to reduce something multifaceted to a single sound bite. Yes, the '87 show is part of the mix, but it's wrong to single it out as the only influence worth mentioning.

I also felt like the movie's greater commentary (use of drone warfare, reaction to terrorist attacks) was perfunctory. Rather than being themes throughout the movie, they were just there to trigger the action scenes.

Honestly, a lot of Trek episodes' themes are more perfunctory than we like to admit. Certainly a lot of the earlier movies' are as well.

At the end of the day, I guess it probably means nothing, but I just find it interesting that TMNT '12 seems to be more universally loved by the TMNT fanbase, than the Abramsverse is by the Trekkie fanbase, despite both extensively re-imagining their respective mythologies. Why does one have fewer critics?

Maybe because TMNT has been rebooted many times, while Trek fans have never had an unambiguous reboot before (although Roddenberry intended TNG to be a soft reboot before his successors brought it more back into line with TOS canon). So Trek fans aren't as used to coping with the new and different -- ironically, since that's exactly what Trek characters do for a living.

A large part of it is probably what I said before, that ST just doesn't work as well in movies as on TV. TMNT '12 has the advantage of being a TV series, one that takes full advantage of modern TV storytelling devices like serialization to tell a deeper and richer story. Movies, as a storytelling medium, are intrinsically handicapped by their brevity and narrowness of focus in comparison to modern TV arcs -- which may be why movies are starting to evolve toward "cinematic universes" that allow TV-style serialization. And, yes, they're under a lot of pressure to emphasize spectacle and action, which narrows their target audience somewhat. The TMNT movies have the same problem -- though far worse, since they're produced by Michael Bay.

(Frankly I think Paramount is missing out by not developing a Star Trek cinematic universe. It seems like a natural, given that ST has already been a successful multi-series franchise on TV.)

Good point. I have seen this happen in the Star Wars fanbase in regards to fans who were unhappy with the decision to reboot the publishing line of tie-ins to be consistent with the new movies and cartoons. It's gotten pretty ugly, far more than anything I've seen with those of us who wish the Trek reboot had never happened.

Uglier than that? Wow, that I'd hate to see.

For instance, I think Force Awakens pulled its characters off well and managed to make the conflicts work as character-driven. For comparison, both Force Awakens and Into Darkness have a climax with the hero fighting the villain (Rey and Kylo Ren; Spock and Khan), who's hurt or killed someone the hero cares about (Finn and Kirk). However, the Into Darkness climax felt like the drama was overshadowed by the stunts of the chase and the fancy effects, while Force Awakens has an awesome set piece for the duel, but keeps the characters front and center. They don't seem to get lost in the "cool" action.

I do have a lot of problems with the final act of STID, but I don't hold them against the whole series. There's good stuff and bad stuff in the Abrams movies, and there are parts I wish had been done entirely differently, but the parts that do work are satisfying enough that I can forgive the rest.

And some of the stuff that I think is wrong for ST -- like the completely fanciful approach to the science and technology -- seems perfect for Star Wars, which is fantasy to begin with.

I don't know why the extreme difference, given that the same guy directed both and is, in theory, a master as characterizations. But, despite one more movie under their belts and more backstory, Abrams' Trek characters feel flatter, less developed, and a lot less alive than his Star Wars characters, who have only one movie and very minimal backstories.

Maybe it's just that Lawrence Kasdan is that good a screenwriter.

 

[Greg Cox]

Plus, there's more to Abrams than just STAR TREK and STAR WARS. Felicity was very character-driven, as was Alias. And he did a good job delineating the various kids in SUPER 8, so I wouldn't say that he's all about action and spectacle at the expense of character.

 

[Christopher]

Plus, there's more to Abrams than just STAR TREK and STAR WARS. Felicity was very character-driven, as was Alias. And he did a good job delineating the various kids in SUPER 8, so I wouldn't say that he's all about action and spectacle at the expense of character.

What I loved about Alias in its early seasons (before it got repeatedly retooled and went off the rails in several consecutive directions) was how it contrasted these big, fanciful, over-the-top, James Bond-style action set pieces the heroine routinely got into on the job with the very grounded, naturalistic, everyday college and social life that she had to contend with back home. The show lost something when all the personal-life stuff got subsumed into the spy melodrama, although there was a decent attempt to recapture the balance in season 4.

And as I said, Abrams's Mission: Impossible III was the first film in the series to handle character at all well. Ethan Hunt got more characterization (and Tom Cruise did more acting) in the first four minutes of that film than in the previous four hours of the franchise. And both of the subsequent films in the series, produced by Abrams, have been much more character-driven than the first two (or indeed than virtually all of the original TV franchise), even while continuing to ramp up the action. I think of the first two M:I films as failed pilots for a film series that didn't start to work until Abrams came along and gave it an emotional grounding.

Although for what it's worth, Abrams's take on M:I doesn't feel like M:I at all; it's actually a lot closer to Alias, especially in the one he directed. Brad Bird's Ghost Protocol is the only film in the series that really comes close to feeling like an M:I episode rather than just "The Adventures of Ethan Hunt," although it retains the standard Ethan Hunt tropes as well. (The first act of the DePalma film feels pretty M:I-like, but then the film totally upends and demolishes the formula and becomes an entirely different kind of spy story, so I don't think it really counts.)

I wonder how many people would be surprised to know that there were no characters named Ethan Hunt, Luther Stickell, or Benji Dunn in the original M:I series.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I forgot that Orci and Kurtzman were fans. I've never heard that the reboot team wanted to have people across the board before. All the publicity I was hearing at the time was that how great it was that Abrams wasn't a fan, that they were going to be able to make Star Trek cool for the first time, so on and so forth.

It really felt like they were ashamed of the franchise they were working on. Had they made a bigger deal of the idea that they wanted to make a movie that was accessible to everyone, rather than tooting their horn that this was Star Trek for the non-Trekkies, that would've been better PR for those of us who were wary of the artistic license being taken.

I think we can attribute that to "This is not your father's Star Trek!" is a grabbier headline than "This Star Trek is for everyone!"

I think Meyer kind of lucked out. Also, weren't the movies he worked on already set on a general story idea (and assumed to be continuations of the TV show) when he came onboard? Abrams was basically given the keys and told to do what he wanted.

I think they had story pieces, but it really took Meyer to meld them together into a cohesive whole. From what I understand, there were 4-5 separate drafts of STII before Meyer came on board, and none of them had much to do with each other, as they were essentially starting from scratch each time. A few involved the return of Khan, some introduced a young Vulcan named Savik (originally a male with one a in his name), one introduced Kirk's son by Janet Wallace (later changed to Carol Marcus), one had the Kobayashi Maru test somewhere in the middle of the movie, and one involved the concept of terraforming that became the Genesis Device. Considering as many disparate elements Meyer was working from and how quickly he pulled them all together into a single screenplay (under two weeks, I think), it's kind of amazing that TWOK makes any sense at all. But, as the man himself said, art thrives on restrictions.

 

[The Wormhole]

Wouldn't it be possible to not have Romulus destroyed in the novel timeline?

Not possible. The Party Line is that Romulus is destroyed in 2387 of the Prime Universe, and Pocket Books is required to adhere to adhere to the Party Line.

And yet, The Good That Men Do got away with retconning "These Are The Voyages", did it not? No reason the same thing couldn't happen here.

IIRC, we never actually see Romulus explode "live" (i.e. we don't see it as it happens). All we have to go on is a flashback to those events. And Nero, for example, is an unreliable narrator if I've ever heard one.

Now, TATV was always easy to retcon, simply because it took place on a holodeck. All we see of the fall of Romulus is other people's memory of those events, so there's a similar amount of wiggle room to play with there. Indeed, even more so, because memory is inherently less reliable than physical records.

And no, this is not a story idea either, so .

1) TATV is one of Trek's most hated episodes and arguably killed the franchise, making it easy to build a case for retconning it. Trek XI is a popular movie that brought in millions at the box office and arguable restored the franchise. You won't find the same enthusiasm to retcon it.
2) TATV being essentially a holodeck simulation makes it easy to write off as "inaccurate" and present the "true events." In Trek XI we see actual memories of Romulus's destruction.
3) If Romulus isn't destroyed, why has Nero turned into an evil, murderous psychopath? What reason does he have to turn to a life of villainy if the loss of his family and home didn't HAPPEN?

That's why I became excited in 1987 for TNG; the concept retained, but with an all-new (at the time) cast of new characters on new missions and new voyages. Fresh Star Trek!

Why couldn't CBS/Paramount have been that bold and that experimental enough to do that in 2009?

Believe it or not, being a reboot of TOS was Trek XI's selling point. The general public were more excited to see new adventures of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock on the Enterprise, even if they are played by new actors, than they were about meeting Captain Johnson and Commander Arr'jjell of the Enterprise H.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If Romulus isn't destroyed, why has Nero turned into an evil, murderous psychopath?

Maybe he always was one to begin with? There isn't always a reason why people do what they do; some people are just nuts, on the face of it.

What reason does he have to turn to a life of villainy if the loss of his family and home didn't HAPPEN?

The point is, did Nero think it happened?

And yes, we do see memories of the destruction of Romulus, but in the end that's all they are - memories. We never actually SEE Romulus destroyed "for real". Like I said, memories of an event don't have to be reliable, or even true.

 

[The Wormhole]

The point is, did Nero think it happened?

Well, no it actually happened. When we are shown the destruction of Romulus in the movie, it's from Spock's memories, as shared with Kirk in the mind meld. Or is Spock's memory not trustworthy anymore either?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ True, Spock as a character is of course more trustworthy than Nero, but memories are memories, and thus can be equally unreliable no matter whose memories they are.

And in case anyone's wondering, I'm not trying to handwave this because I hate ST09, because I don't. I like that film very much. Normally I would have no problem with the storyline of Romulus' destruction - if it weren't for the Stupid Fucking Lawyers (tm)' prohibition on mentioning any of this in the novelverse, it wouldn't really even be a problem.

But like I said, the novels will eventually have to deal with this in SOME way (such a momentous event can't be ignored forever), so they might as well get working on it now...

 

[The Wormhole]

But like I said, the novels will eventually have to deal with this in SOME way (such a momentous event can't be ignored forever), so they might as well get working on it now...

They can easily hold off until 2021, at which time Bad Robot's attitude will hopefully change.

Of course, if the novels drag their ass through 2386, after 2376 lasting so damn long, I don't want them to do 2396.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Much apologizings, but is something happening in 2021? What's so special about that date?