New Abrams interview about the next Trek movie...

[xman]

Escapism is what these things are about....

Uh, not exclusively, no and certainly not for me, but then I've never had trouble following character development with my plot. Two great tastes that taste great together. ST0 was so successful at least in part because it didn't insult its audience's intelligence. Nero was hardly even visible in the final cut. He might as well have been a force of nature. Anybody who thinks Star Trek needs to be dumbed down to be popular is underestimating her audience and likely doing some damage to the future of the franchise.

 

[skep155]

Escapism is what these things are about....

Uh, not exclusively, no and certainly not for me, but then I've never had trouble following character development with my plot. Two great tastes that taste great together. ST0 was so successful at least in part because it didn't insult its audience's intelligence. Nero was hardly even visible in the final cut. He might as well have been a force of nature. Anybody who thinks Star Trek needs to be dumbed down to be popular is underestimating her audience and likely doing some damage to the future of the franchise.

Somewhat agreed, i enjoyed the new film but i would like a slightly more cerebral plot in the sequel. Sure have a villain, i just dont want them to be two dimensional, i want the audience to be able to sympathise with their motives even if they dont agree with them.

 

[Praetor]

I want this:

1) No Khan
2) Major threat that is faceless
3) Secondary threat that is faced/more conventional that Kirk ultimately has to work with to overcome the major threat
4) Personal challenge for Kirk

 

[Silversmok3]

The next bad guy should be someone similar to the assasin in Serenity-for those who haven't seen that movie ,that character is a villian in the sense that he kills and is trained to do lethal harm at the will of his bosses-yet,he is an enlightened man,who believes in a greater purpose to his evil.

The next trek would do well with one man as the bad guy-one man who has a purpose against Enterprise and company,and that purpose must be something besides just being there to fly the superweapon to destruction.

 

[soot]

Expect the studio to reject any proposed storyline that doesn't contain any moustache twirling villain. The mainstream public just aren't interested in any story which contains shades of grey and an underyling message, they want cookie cutter evil villains. For that reason, i think they will go with a good guy vs bad guy storyline to make more money.

Nothing personal, and maybe I'm just a guy in denial who hates to be reminded of it, but I get so tired of hearing how dumb and brainless the general population is. Crap sells, but so, often, does quality storytelling. The audience exists. It's just that the studios are unwilling to give such films a chance, IMO.

That said, a faceless challenge doesn't make a movie any smarter or more meaningful. Remember the glut of disaster movies we had a number of years back? Ugh.

Two-dimensional villains are lame, but conflict is much more emotional and appealing if it's between opposed characters than between a character and a "thing".

 

[Praetor]

I agree that the general population is more intelligent than the studios estimate, or at least more willing to be engaged by intelligent content, but I still think there is a fine line between what general audiences will accept and what they will get bored by.

The thing about doing another "face" villain as the primary antagonist, though, is that Trek has done it for nine out of eleven movies. This next one should try being different.

 

[Jeri]

The audience may be more sophisticated than the studio execs think; but with a couple hundred million bucks on the line they're responsible for, they may err on the conservative side.

 

[Peter the Younger]

I want this:

1) No Khan
2) Major threat that is faceless
3) Secondary threat that is faced/more conventional that Kirk ultimately has to work with to overcome the major threat
4) Personal challenge for Kirk

I think Praetor has the right of it here. Forces of nature vs. personified villains are not mutually exclusive. Villains don't need to be Snidely Whiplash to be threatening; many misguided or deluded people have done despicable things in the name of good causes. Other people are, well, just assholes. "The Doomsday Machine" is actually a prime example of this, I think.

 

[SonicRanger]

I want this:

1) No Khan
2) Major threat that is faceless
3) Secondary threat that is faced/more conventional that Kirk ultimately has to work with to overcome the major threat
4) Personal challenge for Kirk

Sounds like a good list to me!

 

[Rackon]

I want this:

1) No Khan
2) Major threat that is faceless
3) Secondary threat that is faced/more conventional that Kirk ultimately has to work with to overcome the major threat
4) Personal challenge for Kirk

Amen to the above!!

Add to this: development of Spock/Kirk relationship (of course), a little more Spock/Bones verbal sparring would be nice too; Spock/Uhura romance remains, but contextual as in XI; good character moments for the rest of our regulars; and no time travel - although I don't think we have anything to worry about there.

At some point in the sequels I'd love to learn what's happening with that Vulcan colony.

While I agree that conflict personified is often more involving than conflict with a thing, I've had enough cartoonish evil villains in movies to last me two lifetimes. Praetor's solution strikes a nice balance.

Plus, we have the Enterprise primed for their 5 year mission of discover - please, let's go discover something new.

 

[Vigilance]

do you think it's necessary?

Yes.

Movies need villains.

 

[indranee]

^that's not true. not at all. certainly not true of all movies.

action movies do need an antagonist of some sort, it seems... not necessarily a "villain".

 

[LutherSloan]

So he wants something like V'Ger, Sha Ka Ree, the giant space amoeba, or the Doomsday Machine?

 

[indranee]

who? JJ? I'm not sure what he wants or is looking for. either way, in all those instances, there was a humanoid "co-antagonist".

 

[pork3]

do you think it's necessary?

Yes.

Movies need villains.

You're mistaken.
Movies need cute puppies.

-Jamman

 

[Vigilance]

^that's not true. not at all. certainly not true of all movies.

action movies do need an antagonist of some sort, it seems... not necessarily a "villain".

I realize you think that's true and really REALLY want the next trek movie to have no villain.

Why, I have no idea, but I remember you bringing it up a month ago and again now.

Let me rephrase:

Star Trek movies need villains.

Every trek movie I have ever seen that had a bad guy who wasnt personified was pretty lame.

The only case of it being interesting to me in the tv show was Doomsday Machine, though I'd say Decker was a fairly personified co-villain/anti-hero.

But Twister in space, or the hyper-deadly voyager probe, or the hyper-deadly whale probe, is that really what you want?

Sounds like you do.

 

[SonicRanger]

^that's not true. not at all. certainly not true of all movies.

action movies do need an antagonist of some sort, it seems... not necessarily a "villain".

I realize you think that's true and really REALLY want the next trek movie to have no villain.

Why, I have no idea, but I remember you bringing it up a month ago and again now.

Let me rephrase:

Star Trek movies need villains.

Every trek movie I have ever seen that had a bad guy who wasnt personified was pretty lame.

The only case of it being interesting to me in the tv show was Doomsday Machine, though I'd say Decker was a fairly personified co-villain/anti-hero.

But Twister in space, or the hyper-deadly voyager probe, or the hyper-deadly whale probe, is that really what you want?

Sounds like you do.

So Star Trek movies need villains because you think those which don't are "lame"? How is that not subjective?

Only two of eleven ST films haven't had someone acting as a villain: TMP and TVH.

Guess what? After ST'09, TMP and TVH are the highest grossing and most attended Trek films.

And are you saying that TFF is better than TVH just because it has Sybok and NotGod? I hope not. TVH is better than TFF for many reasons other than that.

A good ST film doesn't need a villain, but there does need to be something else filling the antagonist role: mysterious force, the horde, a race against time, etc. Something for the heroes against which to overcome and prevail.

Here's an idea. What if Klingons are the new "villains" but are treated more like the nameless hordes of Orcs in LOTR? Perhaps that wouldn't work for the Klingons because people would want a Kang-type figure. Maybe another alien race, though, would work -- I kind of liked the concept in VOY's "The Swarm" and might like to see that used again.

 

[SalvorHardin]

How about Star Trek vs Aliens

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I'll say this:

Star Trek needs some kind of antagonist, a challenge.

The Doomsday Machine was great because there was drama, conflict, between Kirk and Decker, about how to save thousands of lives.

The Enemy was faceless, but was still in a way a character.

What we really need is a situation where something terrible could potentially happen, and our crew are pushed to the limits, and challenged to the point where it strains them.

Star Trek is as much a Drama as it is an "action" or "scifi" movie. The premise is that the story can be almost anything.

Perhaps it should be approached as a mystery, a puzzle. What is this thing that is doing a terrible thing? How do we stop it? Who/what is behind it?

If they get that right, then the rest is delivery.

A good story, told really well, that leaves us on the edge of our seats, well entertained, and maybe get us thinking about things.

Those are my basic requirements. We all have what we think would make a great movie in our heads, but in the end, we don't know what will be cooked up in Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelhoffs and Abrams' collective minds.

 

[indranee]

exactly. Star Trek needs conflict and subsequent resolution of that.

it does NOT need a "villain".