ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoilers!)

[BillJ]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

JJ could learn to let the characters have more time to talk and scenes breathe so the plot makes sense more easily. Star Trek works best when characters have time to interact with each other and talk.

I don't know. The more dialogue you present, the more gotcha moments that are there for the OCD crowd to tear apart.

In another conversation, I mentioned I thought that the movie might be better if we got more of Khan's background. But the downside is the more backstory you put out there presents the opportunity for more errors to be found.

Especially from this crowd.

 

[Enterpriserules]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

JJ could learn to let the characters have more time to talk and scenes breathe so the plot makes sense more easily. Star Trek works best when characters have time to interact with each other and talk.

I don't know. The more dialogue you present, the more gotcha moments that are there for the OCD crowd to tear apart.

In another conversation, I mentioned I thought that the movie might be better if we got more of Khan's background. But the downside is the more backstory you put out there presents the opportunity for more errors to be found.

Especially from this crowd.

I see what you are saying, but every extended conversation that Foster put into this book does nothing but further illuminate the plot, characters and strengthen both as well. So I think that JJ could learn to let some scenes breathe and help both character development and plot all because the scenes were stretched out a bit

 

[BillJ]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

JJ could learn to let the characters have more time to talk and scenes breathe so the plot makes sense more easily. Star Trek works best when characters have time to interact with each other and talk.

I don't know. The more dialogue you present, the more gotcha moments that are there for the OCD crowd to tear apart.

In another conversation, I mentioned I thought that the movie might be better if we got more of Khan's background. But the downside is the more backstory you put out there presents the opportunity for more errors to be found.

Especially from this crowd.

I see what you are saying, but every extended conversation that Foster put into this book does nothing but further illuminate the plot, characters and strengthen both as well. So I think that JJ could learn to let some scenes breathe and help both character development and plot all because the scenes were stretched out a bit

But what do you cut? Into Darkness already clocked in at over two hours. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you would have to cut something if you started extending scenes.

 

[bullethead]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

I don't know. The more dialogue you present, the more gotcha moments that are there for the OCD crowd to tear apart.

In another conversation, I mentioned I thought that the movie might be better if we got more of Khan's background. But the downside is the more backstory you put out there presents the opportunity for more errors to be found.

Especially from this crowd.

I see what you are saying, but every extended conversation that Foster put into this book does nothing but further illuminate the plot, characters and strengthen both as well. So I think that JJ could learn to let some scenes breathe and help both character development and plot all because the scenes were stretched out a bit

But what do you cut? Into Darkness already clocked in at over two hours. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you would have to cut something if you started extending scenes.

Everything involving Carol Marcus (just stick Spock in the shuttle torpedo scene), the stuff where Kirk is going back to the Academy, everything on Qo'nos (seriously, the Klingons did nothing but get beat worse than Worf, so there's no reason to keep them), and the whole "the Enterprise plummets through the atmosphere" thing. That would be a decent start.

 

[Enterpriserules]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

I don't know. The more dialogue you present, the more gotcha moments that are there for the OCD crowd to tear apart.

In another conversation, I mentioned I thought that the movie might be better if we got more of Khan's background. But the downside is the more backstory you put out there presents the opportunity for more errors to be found.

Especially from this crowd.

I see what you are saying, but every extended conversation that Foster put into this book does nothing but further illuminate the plot, characters and strengthen both as well. So I think that JJ could learn to let some scenes breathe and help both character development and plot all because the scenes were stretched out a bit

But what do you cut? Into Darkness already clocked in at over two hours. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you would have to cut something if you started extending scenes.

I would not say cut anything, nothing wrong with a 2.20 movie, we are use to them these days

 

[Stevil2001]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

Also still no reason given why Carol Marcus needed to change her clothes in a shuttle craft while speaking with Kirk.

I felt the reason was clear enough in the film; she was changing into a flight suit and time was of the essence. Maybe not the best reason, but I understood what the reason was supposed to be.

Which is silly, as she then asks him for the steadiest hands on the ship apparently, and so McCoy must then find a flightsuit and put it on himself.

 

[Christopher]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

Like I said, not a very convincing reason, and it was certainly gratuitous. But there was at least an attempt to justify it, rather than it being completely random as some reviews have said.

 

[RPJOB]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

I agree that there's a number of bits that could be cut. The whole Kirk as Captain - academy - first officer - Captain again really added nothing to the movie and was essentially wasted time. As I said in another thread it felt like the writers response that Kirk was promoted too fast in the first one. However, when the whole arc takes about 5 minutes, what did it really accomplish? Have Pike express disappointment with Kirk, they go to the meeting, Pike dies and Marcus sends Kirk after Harrison. Plays out the same without the whole demotion bit. Same with Spock being assigned to the Bradbury. What exactly did that accomplish?

Wasn't really a fan of Carol Marcus. Was yet another set of daddy issues injected into a movie series that's already chock full of them. At least cut the connection with her and the admiral.

I know that a number of people will disagree with this but I'd also cut, or at least downplay, the Spock/Uhura relationship, II like seeing Uhura more involved in the plots but too much of her character is simply being Spock's girlfriend. The arguments, the making up, the abandoning her post when Spock's in trouble have Uhura being someon who's simple an appendage to another character instead of being one on her own. For a movie series that dreadfully short on women I'd like to see one who can hold her own against the males without being defined be her relationship to one of them.

Unfortunately, Star Trek is now a big, summer movie and there's not time or space for deeper characterization. We've got multi million dollar special effects sequences to show!

Just so you don't get the wrong idea. I enjoyed the movie for what it was worth. Hopefully the next reboot can take a slightly less frantic pace and let us get a bit more into the characters.

 

[Tosk]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

I don't know. The more dialogue you present, the more gotcha moments that are there for the OCD crowd to tear apart.

You're presupposing that they couldn't write more dialogue without it being worthy of criticism. If they keep it tight (by which I mean well-executed, not breakneck) then there is no problem. Write good dialogue and people will enjoy it. And Orci/Kurtz are certainly capable of good dialogue. It's their plotting that is the weak spot.

Personally I'd rather a well-written movie that breathes a little more, but I understand that's not the way you usually make a blockbuster these days.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

I think Carol Marcus took her uniform off because if she left it on then her skirt would've rode up on her inside the flight suit.

 

[Enterpriserules]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

I don't know. The more dialogue you present, the more gotcha moments that are there for the OCD crowd to tear apart.

You're presupposing that they couldn't write more dialogue without it being worthy of criticism. If they keep it tight (by which I mean well-executed, not breakneck) then there is no problem. Write good dialogue and people will enjoy it. And Orci/Kurtz are certainly capable of good dialogue. It's their plotting that is the weak spot.

Personally I'd rather a well-written movie that breathes a little more, but I understand that's not the way you usually make a blockbuster these days.

You presented that quote as mine, but it is not mine, I was quoting someone else. I was arguing that the dialoge that Foster added, really added to the plot and to the characters because the scenes breathed more. So I'm hoping for that in the next film, because this adaptation makes this an even better and more coherent film. Movies can be more than 2 hours these days, we can handle it, so 10 more minutes of dialogue and plotting is ok with me if it adds to the story like Foster has done here.

 

[Christopher]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

Hopefully whoever they bring in to direct the next film will also be an accomplished screenwriter with a good sense of plot to complement K&O's skill for dialogue (although it isn't yet known whether K&O will even be involved -- they've got a lot of other stuff going on these days).

 

[ATimson]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

Hopefully whoever they bring in to direct the next film will also be an accomplished screenwriter with a good sense of plot to complement K&O's skill for dialogue (although it isn't yet known whether K&O will even be involved -- they've got a lot of other stuff going on these days).

Do we know how much involvement J.J. had with the story or script for either of the first two? He didn't receive story or screenplay credit, though admittedly that could be simply out of generosity rather than a reflection of the work he did/didn't do.

Honestly, I'd almost think it should be the other way around - it'd be easier for a director to punch up weak dialogue on the set, but if the story's not strong then by the time they're involved it's too late.

 

[Enterpriserules]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

Hopefully whoever they bring in to direct the next film will also be an accomplished screenwriter with a good sense of plot to complement K&O's skill for dialogue (although it isn't yet known whether K&O will even be involved -- they've got a lot of other stuff going on these days).

They do! I am hoping that the main creative team will be back so that the film will not be too far off what has been established. Hopefully they won't be afraid to have things be a bit slower.

Star Trek III was the most contemplative and downbeat of the original cast films, and we say that in a good way. Given the marketplace these days, could a third Star Trek film from the Bad Robot team in any way resemble The Search for Spock?

ORCI: I hope that, in a certain way, we've earned the right to get a little bit crazy and maybe go more sci-fi? I’m going to flip this interview on you. What do you think?

We wouldn't mind a little less action, a little more character development. We’re not sure they need to beam down to Risa for a whole movie, but maybe even just a few minutes of them relaxing, like in that wonderfully cheesy campfire scene in Star Trek V, would be welcome…

ORCI: I agree with you completely. You brought up, jokingly, the campfire scene in Star Trek V. I love that scene. I love it. I feel like that’s pure Star Trek. Again, let the best idea win and we may not be around and it’s going to be a competition, but maybe we earned the right to do some sci-fi in this third movie and sort of have earned the right to do whatever Star Trek needs to be. We’ve done these two cool, big, action Star Trek movies. Are we allowed to do more than that now? I’d like to think so. You’re from StarTrek.com. You know that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is panned by some people and yet, hell man, V’ger going off and becoming sentient is awesome. It’s such a trippy thing.

I like the sound of something more contemplative and Sci-fi with the new film. I guess let the speculation begin!

 

[Christopher]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

Do we know how much involvement J.J. had with the story or script for either of the first two? He didn't receive story or screenplay credit, though admittedly that could be simply out of generosity rather than a reflection of the work he did/didn't do.

Well, in Hollywood movies, the director is always the ultimate arbiter of script content, with the writers' job being to give the directors what they ask for -- which is why so many movies credited to talented screenwriters end up being incoherent messes, because a lot of directors are more interested in the visuals, acting, effects, and every aspect of filmmaking except plot and dialogue. And which is why it's a good thing that more and more film directors these days are coming from the ranks of TV writers/showrunners like Abrams and Whedon. And I assume Abrams's relationship with his ST staff is the same as his executive-producer relationship with the showrunners of Bad Robot's various TV series -- he supervises the process and has input into every decision -- but with the added layer of control that comes with being the director.

Honestly, I'd almost think it should be the other way around - it'd be easier for a director to punch up weak dialogue on the set, but if the story's not strong then by the time they're involved it's too late.

But as I said, in films the director is always the ultimate guiding force behind the writing process, whatever the credits say. The story is shaped to the director's specifications from the word go. So having a director who's also a writer would be the best chance of getting a solid, coherent script.

 

[Tosk]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

So having a director who's also a writer would be the best chance of getting a solid, coherent script.

Except that there is no guarantee there either...there are some writer/directors who are absolutely terrible writers. (Paul W.S. Anderson and Mark Steven Johnson spring to mind.)

 

[Christopher]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

^Which is why I said "chance" instead of "certainty."

 

[Tosk]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

But surely having a good writer and a good director would give you just as much chance? Most of the "best" movies of all time were written and directed by separate people.

Not that I have any illusions about what the near-future of Trek is on the big screen. More of the same.

 

[Christopher]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

But surely having a good writer and a good director would give you just as much chance? Most of the "best" movies of all time were written and directed by separate people.

Again: In Hollywood movies, regardless of what the credits say, the director always makes the ultimate decisions about what's in the script. Usually the director is guiding the scriptwriting process, making the decisions about story and character, or at least approving or rejecting the screenwriters' ideas. So you can never truly say that the director is "separate" from the scripting process. Often the director is the only constant in the process while various screenwriters and script doctors, mostly uncredited, come and go and work on various drafts whose fragments are eventually stitched together Frankenstein-style into something the director is satisfied with.

You can take a script by the most brilliant writer around, give it to a director who doesn't value the written word, and see it turned into a piece of incoherent hackery. For example, compare Joss Whedon's original script for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie with the disaster its director turned it into. Writers in the Hollywood feature film industry have zero power to protect the integrity of their scripts unless they're also producing and/or directing them. That's why I don't trust directors who aren't also writers to make well-plotted movies.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: ALT: Star Trek Into Darkness by A. D. Foster Review Thread (Spoile

By coincidence, I observed a possible example of this last night. I was rewatching the old "Doctor Phibes" movies with Vincent Price. Both films are (stylishly) directed by Robert Fuest, but Fuest had a hand in writing the script for the second movie as well--and, based on these films at least, he seems to have been a much better director than a screenwriter.

Both films are directed with a certain flair and visual imagination, but the script for the second movie is a choppy, clunky affair. The dialogue is notably less sharp and packed with endless expository monologues where the characters laboriously explain the plot to each other. Granted, the sequel was allegedly a rushed, somewhat troubled production that suffered from a heavy degree of studio interference and friction among the cast--but the two movies do seem to illustrate that letting the director handle the writing as well is not always a good idea.

Meanwhile, yes, I have seen scripts that have been worked on by at least twelve different writers . . . .