Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

[kkozoriz1]

^Like I said, it wouldn't have materially affected the story to jump forward 4 years between the Kobayashi Maru and the attack on Vulcan (I choose 4 years because then Chekov would've been the correct age) and let Kirk gain some experience in the interim. However, I understand why they didn't do it that way, and it's the fault of the entire modern film industry, not of these specific filmmakers. Movies these days, as I think I commented above, are all about relentless pacing. They're not allowed to slow down, to have anything in them that would be seen as a break in the pace. That's why most of the scripted exposition that would've made more sense of a lot of things in this movie ended up on the cutting room floor. Pacing in movies has become a tyrannical master. In the minds of modern filmmakers, it takes priority over everything from vital exposition to character depth to fundamental story coherence. Which is just one of the reasons why movies in general today are not all that well-written or credible.

So I'm sure not going to blame this one movie for being unable to escape the irrational demands that are holding the entire film industry hostage these days. The modern motion picture industry is such a hostile environment to good storytelling that I consider it a triumph that the movie is as coherent as it is.

That's more a situation with the summer blockbusters than with films released at other times of the year, although it affects them as well. That's on reason I would have preferred the original December release date. Less pressure to make it more *POW* *BAM*. However, the more the filmmakers play along with this, the worse it gets. At some point, someone is going to take a deep breath, step back from the cutting edge and make the movie they want to make, rather than the one they feel they HAVE to. And it will be just as, if not more, successful. Until then, Star Trek will be a popcorn movie. Which is sad because the new fans that they are attracting won't know the true depth it's capable of.

 

[David cgc]

I mean, nothing shows this better than the Kelvin sequence. With all that big battle stuff going on, the real focus, of the script, the direction, the cinematography, the music, everything, is on the agonizing emotion of George and Winona leading up to the moment of Jim's birth. When I watched that sequence, I wasn't going "Gee whiz, look at all the bright explodey things," I was bawling my eyes out at the very human tragedy that the film clearly regarded as more important than the action.

And that's paralleled at the end. When Nero is finally defeated, the movie doesn't gloat over his fiery death and treat it as a triumph; rather, the music gets somber and elegiac and we're treated to a poignant close-up of a man who's lost everything and deserves our sympathy. That's just brilliant, emotion-driven filmmaking there, in the middle of intense, frenetic action. That's the work of a director who knows what's really important.

I thought it was interesting that it was also paralleled musically. The score when the Kelvin is on a collision course is the same melody as when the Jellyfish is at the end, though with two vastly different arrangements.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

action movie vs story & character development

it's the fault of the entire modern film industry, not of these specific filmmakers. Movies these days, as I think I commented above, are all about relentless pacing. They're not allowed to slow down, to have anything in them that would be seen as a break in the pace.

The modern motion picture industry is such a hostile environment to good storytelling that I consider it a triumph that the movie is as coherent as it is.

That's more a situation with the summer blockbusters than with films released at other times of the year, although it affects them as well. That's on reason I would have preferred the original December release date. Less pressure to make it more *POW* *BAM*.

Star Trek Nemesis had a Release date: 13 December 2002

"It is the most action-packed of all the Trek films, including the TOS films"

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Nemesis-Two-Disc-Collectors/dp/B000A6T1KE
I agree. This was not a 'Summer movie' competing with Summer SFX blockbusters...

Before Star Trek XI (2009) the last Trek film without a Q4 release was Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Release date: 9 June 1989

Until then, Star Trek will be a popcorn movie. Which is sad because the new fans that they are attracting won't know the true depth it's capable of.

I think we all know that Star Trek feature films are sci fi action movies. Period.
Star Trek television series have 42 minutes to tell stories and allow story arcs and character development arcs over 22 episodes. (42 x 22 = 924 minutes/season). The closest you will get to a feature film pacing within a Trek series is a 2-hour pilot, 2-hour season finale, or sweeps period 2-parter episodes. Since television works on breaks for advertising (in the USA) the story is broken down to Acts. Those acts do hurt longer pacing, but not to the point of a sci-fi action feature film as Christopher mentioned... At least on the Trek series DVD/Blu-ray you can continue watching without the interruption except a dip to black.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I wouldn't call TMP an action move. Many people would say exactly the opposite. TWOK had many great action sequences but also a lot of character moments. Same with TSFS. TVH wouldn't qualify either. TFF certainly tried to be one, however badly. TUC was more of a mystery/thriller.

Of the TNG movies, Insurrection was probably the furthest from an action movie although it certainly had it's fair share of action sequences. First Contact and Nemesis I'll give you, no question.

So, later Star trek feature films may be sc fi actions films but not all of them are by any means.

 

[Christopher]

Re: action movie vs story & character development

That's more a situation with the summer blockbusters than with films released at other times of the year, although it affects them as well. That's on reason I would have preferred the original December release date. Less pressure to make it more *POW* *BAM*.

That's not true, because the change in release date had no effect on the content of the film. The decision to postpone the film from December to May wasn't made until more than three months into principal photography, too late to have any impact on the basic story or structure of the film. The film was edited on essentially the originally planned schedule, being completed two days before its original release date. The film we got in May 2009 was essentially the exact same film we would've gotten in December 2008.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I wouldn't call TMP an action move. Many people would say exactly the opposite. TWOK had many great action sequences but also a lot of character moments. Same with TSFS. TVH wouldn't qualify either. TFF certainly tried to be one, however badly. TUC was more of a mystery/thriller.

Of the TNG movies, Insurrection was probably the furthest from an action movie although it certainly had it's fair share of action sequences. First Contact and Nemesis I'll give you, no question.

So, later Star trek feature films may be sc fi actions films but not all of them are by any means.

TMP was a no action movie, thats for sure. Even using the term movie might be a stretch and Motion Picture borders on irony. The others were action films in the context of the less kinetic times they were filmed.

 

[JD]

^Like I said, it wouldn't have materially affected the story to jump forward 4 years between the Kobayashi Maru and the attack on Vulcan (I choose 4 years because then Chekov would've been the correct age) and let Kirk gain some experience in the interim. However, I understand why they didn't do it that way, and it's the fault of the entire modern film industry, not of these specific filmmakers. Movies these days, as I think I commented above, are all about relentless pacing. They're not allowed to slow down, to have anything in them that would be seen as a break in the pace. That's why most of the scripted exposition that would've made more sense of a lot of things in this movie ended up on the cutting room floor. Pacing in movies has become a tyrannical master. In the minds of modern filmmakers, it takes priority over everything from vital exposition to character depth to fundamental story coherence. Which is just one of the reasons why movies in general today are not all that well-written or credible.

So I'm sure not going to blame this one movie for being unable to escape the irrational demands that are holding the entire film industry hostage these days. The modern motion picture industry is such a hostile environment to good storytelling that I consider it a triumph that the movie is as coherent as it is.

That's more a situation with the summer blockbusters than with films released at other times of the year, although it affects them as well. That's on reason I would have preferred the original December release date. Less pressure to make it more *POW* *BAM*. However, the more the filmmakers play along with this, the worse it gets. At some point, someone is going to take a deep breath, step back from the cutting edge and make the movie they want to make, rather than the one they feel they HAVE to. And it will be just as, if not more, successful. Until then, Star Trek will be a popcorn movie. Which is sad because the new fans that they are attracting won't know the true depth it's capable of.

Oh, plenty of people do, but they're either people with lots of influence like Spielberg or Scorsese, or they make it as an Indie. And sadly making something as an Indie means you'll get next to nothing compared to the big blockbusters. Just look at Moon, it was IMO a really good movie (I just watched it on Netflix Instant Watch this weekend) but most people have never heard of it since it was an indie movie with very little action.

 

[Christopher]

Of course TMP wasn't an action movie. It was trying to be literate science fiction in the vein of 2001. And you know what? Fans and critics found it dull. It made tons of money, but didn't get acclaim or respect. So for the second movie, they made an action flick, and fans gobbled it up and asked for more. And so just about every subsequent Trek movie has been treated as an action movie, even when it would've made more sense for it not to be. Insurrection, for one, was a movie that would've been fine as a straight-up drama, but it had to have shootouts and space battles tacked onto it and those were so forced and distracting from the story that they undermined the whole thing.

 

[JD]

so audiences probably wouldn't be too confused by it.

I can't say it often enough: audiences are not dumb.

So this is probably the smartest, most coherent ST feature film we could've realistically expected anyone in Hollywood to make. Yes, it has logic flaws, but in the hands of a typical Hollywood director they would've probably been far worse. So me, I'm grateful we got as good a movie as we did. I don't think anyone could've realistically done better given the nature of the feature film industry today.

I think you have a rather weird prejudiced impression of "Hollywood".

The screenwriters were actually producers of the film, which is rare in cinema.

Which explains a lot about how the script was written.

As someone who dreams of one day working in Hollywood (on either side of the camera, I've done both in the past) I pay alot of attention to this kind of stuff, and I have to agree with Christopher here. Hollywood action movies these days are all about the action, and that's it. And that is for good reason, since that does tend to be what most of the target audience is into these days. I don't know about anyone else, but whenever I hear people talking these kinds of action movies, all they ever seem to talk about is the action, you very rarely ever hear people talk about the character development, or even the script quality. Now you need to keep in mind that these are the low brow action movies we're talking about here not the series dramas, and there is a big difference between the two. I think that is part of the problem, when you are talking about movies you need to take things like that into consideration, no matter how badly some of us might want them to be, summer blockbusters are never going to be as smart or deep as the award season movies, it's just the way things are these days.

 

[kkozoriz1]

True, more's the pity.

Perhaps some of it would have been changed slightly in editing but not much. Perhaps a bit more of the character moments could have been included.

The prime universe shall continue in the books but it seems the future of movies and, most likely, on TV will be in the new continuity.

 

[JarodRussell]

Oh, plenty of people do, but they're either people with lots of influence like Spielberg or Scorsese, or they make it as an Indie. And sadly making something as an Indie means you'll get next to nothing compared to the big blockbusters. Just look at Moon, it was IMO a really good movie (I just watched it on Netflix Instant Watch this weekend) but most people have never heard of it since it was an indie movie with very little action.

Rather an indie movie with very little advertising.

The main reason (I think) why Star Trek 2009 was so dramatically more successful than Nemesis or Insurrection was the way it was promoted. Paramount changed the target audience, and changed the promotional campaign accordingly. They already should have done that for Nemesis. I remember two trailers and one ET visit to the set in which they concentrated on the wedding and Data singing. Star Trek 2009 on the other hand... that was an aggressive promo attack on the audience. Trailers, posters, Intel, Burger King, lots of panels with actors, writers and director promoting the movie, the superbowl ad, the big names (like Abrams and Bana and also Nimoy) being dropped all the time.

They made the mistake of casting a total noname as Picard's "worst enemy". They didn't do it a second time when they rebooted.

[Hypothetical]A TNG movie with THAT promotional campaign would have made a lot of money, I think. And then add someone like Eric Bana as the villain and a big name director (Bryan Singer wanted to do a final TNG movie before it was announced that Abrams would do a reboot), and it would have already done a lot better than Nemesis or Insurrection, regardless of the content. And then drop Nimoy into the mix to get the TOS fans to watch, too. And then add a couple of young fresh actors like Chris Pine or Zachary Quinto that would take over when Patrick Stewart and Co leave to get the younger part of the audience in it.

I think that would have worked as well. Maybe not in the 400 million range, but more in the 200-300 million range, which would have already been a vast improvement.

It's also save to say that TFF would have made a couple of millions more had Sean Connery played Sybok instead of Lawrence Luckinbill, without changing anything else about the movie. [/Hypothetical]

 

[Christopher]

As someone who dreams of one day working in Hollywood (on either side of the camera, I've done both in the past) I pay alot of attention to this kind of stuff, and I have to agree with Christopher here. Hollywood action movies these days are all about the action, and that's it. And that is for good reason, since that does tend to be what most of the target audience is into these days.

It's not even just action movies. It's the industry in general. Writers are considered nothing more than hired contractors, scripts nothing more than vague suggestions. There is no mechanism to protect the integrity or coherence of a story.

I read a disturbing account the other day about the origins of the Ridley Scott Robin Hood film that came out a few weeks ago and promptly bombed. Apparently it started as a script called Nottingham that would've been about the Sheriff of Nottingham using medieval forensic techniques to track down a Sherwood Forest-based terrorist who was preying on innocent, well-to-do citizens. In other words, the Sheriff would've been the hero and Robin Hood the largely unseen villain. It was a fresh, imaginative take on the legend and everyone in Hollywood loved it and was dying to make it. But when Ridley Scott was brought in as director, he had his heart set on making a movie about archers or something, and he ordered rewrites of the script to put his own mark on it, and eventually that innovative script that everyone loved was completely thrown out except for maybe one or two lines, and what we ended up with was an entirely conventional, essentially superfluous Robin Hood film. All because in the feature film industry, the director's word is inviolable and scripts have no protection whatsoever. And that's got nothing to do with whether it's an action movie or not. It's endemic to the culture of the feature film industry.

So a situation like Star Trek or Serenity where a movie is directed or produced by its actual writer/s, where the system works more like television because the filmmakers come from television and are used to a system where writers have actual clout, is a rare exception to the norm.

 

[kkozoriz1]

Star Trek by Ridley Scott would be interesting to see. At least we wouldn't have lens flares and he wouldn't be tapping the camera all the time to create motion.

 

[flemm]

I read a disturbing account the other day about the origins of the Ridley Scott Robin Hood film that came out a few weeks ago and promptly bombed. Apparently it started as a script called Nottingham that would've been about the Sheriff of Nottingham using medieval forensic techniques to track down a Sherwood Forest-based terrorist who was preying on innocent, well-to-do citizens.

It's funny to read that because I remember hearing about that script of a sort of demystification of the Robin Hood legend years ago, and thinking at the time that it sounded interesting.

When the Ridley Scott movie came out, I wondered in passing if that was a revamped version of that script, and now I know

 

[JarodRussell]

It's not even just action movies. It's the industry in general. Writers are considered nothing more than hired contractors, scripts nothing more than vague suggestions. There is no mechanism to protect the integrity or coherence of a story.

I read a disturbing account the other day about the origins of the Ridley Scott Robin Hood film that came out a few weeks ago and promptly bombed. Apparently it started as a script called Nottingham that would've been about the Sheriff of Nottingham using medieval forensic techniques to track down a Sherwood Forest-based terrorist who was preying on innocent, well-to-do citizens. In other words, the Sheriff would've been the hero and Robin Hood the largely unseen villain. It was a fresh, imaginative take on the legend and everyone in Hollywood loved it and was dying to make it. But when Ridley Scott was brought in as director, he had his heart set on making a movie about archers or something, and he ordered rewrites of the script to put his own mark on it, and eventually that innovative script that everyone loved was completely thrown out except for maybe one or two lines, and what we ended up with was an entirely conventional, essentially superfluous Robin Hood film. All because in the feature film industry, the director's word is inviolable and scripts have no protection whatsoever. And that's got nothing to do with whether it's an action movie or not. It's endemic to the culture of the feature film industry.

This was never any different. A director is the one who shapes the movie. He is the Captain of the ship, since the beginning of filmmaking.
Of course occasionally the producer comes in and has weird ideas about giant spiders in the third act of a movie. And then a new director comes along and wants to give Superman a black suit and a Supermobil.
But that's not a recent development, it has always been this way.
Nicholas Meyer also completely rewrote the script to Wrath of Khan, if I'm not mistaken. It can end in a good way or a bad way.

The same shit happened in Star Trek 2009, too. Orci/Kurtzman wanted to have Spock and Uhura do the Vulcan finger touching, yet Abrams insisted the audience wouldn't get it, so they started kissing. Wonderful TMP style interiors were designed, for example for the engine room, but Abrams wanted the apple store and a brewery/factory aboard the ship. Church had an initial design for the Enterprise that looked like a perfect update to the TOS Enterprise. But Abrams wanted the hot rod.

It happens all the time.


Isn't it the same thing with writing tie-in literature? You have an idea you like but the editor just won't let you write it? And when a new editor replaces the old one, there are entirely new demands?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I can't say it often enough: audiences are not dumb.

But they are often easily confused by seemingly obvious things. That's why many films and TV pilots are shown to preview audiences, who fill out little cards on their reactions.

I think you have a rather weird prejudiced impression of "Hollywood".

One could say the same about your rare opinion of the movie. JJ's product seemingly pleased most people, most pro reviewers and most fans.

Wonderful TMP style interiors were designed, for example for the engine room, but Abrams wanted... a brewery/factory aboard the ship.

He was rationalizing to meet the budget. With a few million more, they'd have built a set.

 

[Therin of Andor]

At least we wouldn't have lens flares and he wouldn't be tapping the camera all the time to create motion.

Hehehehe. You know, I've seen the film about twelve times now and there are still only about five instances where very obvious lens flares catch my attention. And the tapping technique doesn't annoy me at all. It seems very effective. I was amazed to see how it worked in the bonus features.

 

[Bishop76]

The main reason (I think) why Star Trek 2009 was so dramatically more successful than Nemesis or Insurrection was the way it was promoted. Paramount changed the target audience, and changed the promotional campaign accordingly. They already should have done that for Nemesis. I remember two trailers and one ET visit to the set in which they concentrated on the wedding and Data singing. Star Trek 2009 on the other hand... that was an aggressive promo attack on the audience. Trailers, posters, Intel, Burger King, lots of panels with actors, writers and director promoting the movie, the superbowl ad, the big names (like Abrams and Bana and also Nimoy) being dropped all the time.

I'm going to say that I'm pretty sure STXI was more successful than either Insurrection or Emesis (sic) because it was a good movie and appealed to a mass audience while those other two did not in any way. Emesis was just jaw-droppingly, lemon-suckingly awful and Insurrection would have been forgettable as a 2-part episode, much less as a major motion picture. There are no mystical, magical, Paramount-is-evil reasons why STXI succeeded where previous films failed - it was GOOD.

 

[Christopher]

I'd say you're both right, and they're both aspects of the same phenomenon. Before, Paramount treated ST as a mid-level franchise, assigned it to mid-level directors, and did a lukewarm job promoting it. For this, they decided to put their A game into it on all levels, giving it to one of their top directors and going all-out on the promotion. So it's not either-or.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I just wish they'd use a director who knew something about the subject matter, unlike Abrams or Baird.