Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[Harbinger]

As a newbie to the forums, I'm kind of surprised (but glad) to see so many people defending the Abrams Star Trek movies. I would think most "Trekkies" were very anti-Abrams going by what I've heard but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I was a Trekkie before some of the anti-Abrams crowd were born.

I actually figured most of the anti-Abrams Trekkies were 'older' (like myself) being the complaint is mostly due to the movies not being in tradition like TOS and onwards. After all, Abrams was supposedly aiming for a younger target audience.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I figured it was the TNG-era crowd (of which I guess I'm a part) who were most anti-Abrams Trek. Many TNG fans viewed TOS as a goofy relic (as did Gene Roddenberry!), and seeing that version of Trek brought back over the much slower-paced and PC Trek probably rankles.

 

[Harbinger]

I figured it was the TNG-era crowd (of which I guess I'm a part) who were most anti-Abrams Trek. Many TNG fans viewed TOS as a goofy relic (as did Gene Roddenberry!), and seeing that version of Trek brought back over the much slower-paced and PC Trek probably rankles.

TOS is barely watchable for me with the exception of a small handful of episodes due to how utterly campy it was. It wasn't until TMP that I actually liked Star Trek. The TOS movies were all good, imo, exception being The Search for Spock. I even enjoyed Final Frontier. That said, I try not to judge but it's hard for me to see anyone blast the Abrams movies and yet hold TOS in such high regards. Personally, I think that might be a bit nostalgia getting in the way. I mean people say they prefer ridiculous looking rubber suit Gorn over Abrams Gorn which for the life of me, I can't understand. But hey, I'm not exactly on the line with a lot of Trekkies being one of my favorite movies was TMP and I did actually like FF.

 

[BillJ]

TOS is barely watchable for me with the exception of a small handful of episodes due to how utterly campy it was. It wasn't until TMP that I actually liked Star Trek. The TOS movies were all good, imo, exception being The Search for Spock. I even enjoyed Final Frontier. That said, I try not to judge but it's hard for me to see anyone blast the Abrams movies and yet hold TOS in such high regards. Personally, I think that might be a bit nostalgia getting in the way. I mean people say they prefer ridiculous looking rubber suit Gorn over Abrams Gorn which for the life of me, I can't understand. But hey, I'm not exactly on the line with a lot of Trekkies being one of my favorite movies was TMP and I did actually like FF.

I think part of it is simply when you started watching. Me? I've been watching for thirty-eight years starting at age four. For me, Star Trek: The Original Series is Star Trek. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is my favorite Trek movie, I find much of the spin-offs incredibly dull and love the Abramsverse films. I understand the need to update and change things for modern audiences but I still will take the rubber-suited Gorn from Arena over the Veloci-Gorn any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The Abramsverse films have brought back a sense of fun that has been missing from the franchise for a good twenty years, at least. When I grew up, Star Trek was fun, action-adventure escapism, much of those elements went missing in the spin-offs and I'm glad Abrams brought them back.

 

[M'Sharak]

Its great that we are all talking about Kirk and his great attributes but can we all get back to the main topic. how many of you really want Orci and his friends to return. I don't.

I think everyone got, right off the bat, that you didn't want Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof back; it's there in the thread title for all to see. I do not think, however, that it's fair for you to criticize people for following side topics which you yourself introduced into the discussion.

Look to your earlier posts in the thread:

... twisted sex scenes...

... showing off a woman's hotness and using her as a sex object...

Star Trek films should have a very deep story with a lot of philosophical and intellectual influences.

... real credible and intelligent science fiction writers like Micko Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson...

Gravity was a beautiful and well in depth sci-fi film that will be remembered for a long time.

--------------

Why is Kirk having sex with two cat women at the same time.

Kirk as an 18 years old college frat boy freshman who loves to experiment with sex

Kirk is more of a horn dog.

A perfect example is how Nolan and his writer brother David Nolan wrote Bruce Wayne in their Barman film series.

--------------

I was watching Django Unchained yesterday and I was so amazed that the film was so story driven.

In Django Unchained every moment in the film had a story to tell. that is the depth.

In TNG, I still get chills watching Picard, Worf, Riker,
Dr. Crusher, Geordi, Deanna and Data all sitting together in the commanding room giving their opinions on things...

--------------

Both men write books based on science hypotheses in other words what we see in our sci-fi films.

Both men have written books and published articles about time travel, wormholes, parallel universes. This are all still classified as science fictions.

Is it any wonder, then, that discussion is all over the place? If you desire to have a discussion which focuses on a single main topic, then it would be better for you to make it the main topic from the outset, and leave out all of the peripheral material that you'd prefer people not talk about.

I'm getting a strange feeling of déjà vu, as if I've explained all of this to someone before in exactly the same way.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Its great that we are all talking about Kirk and his great attributes but can we all get back to the main topic. how many of you really want Orci and his friends to return. I don't.

It's already confirmed that they are. I think this should be "their" trilogy - it would be strange for the 3rd (and possibly final) installment to have a completely different feel to the other two.

I don't think a change a writers would mean that the next film would have a completely different feel from the other two unless they really aim to radically change the feel and tone. It will ultimately depend on what the next director wants to do. I actually would like a change in writing just to reflect the series growing and maturing. It would be a shame for a third film to feel interchangeable with the first. A film series needs to grow, otherwise it feels like it's going nowhere. That's what I like about the original Star Wars trilogy as each film went for a different tone and it wasn't just because of different directors but that Lucas wanted to make it feel like audiences are on a journey. That's one aspect of Star Wars I think Trek needs most rather than just making the phasers shoot more like laser blasters and such. Also, I'd hate for this series to stop with a third installment merely because a bunch of other genre film franchises quit at #3. I'd like to see this series go as far as either TOS and TNG films, making that a minimum of four films. Maybe have a fifth film take place on the end of their five year mission, where we get to see how far the characters have come since the first.

 

[thumbtack]

They also care too much about showing off a woman's hotness.

 

[Nerys Myk]

They also care too much about showing off a woman's hotness.

You'd think there would be more than two scenes lasting seconds if that was true.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I'm constantly baffled at the way people talk about NuTrek as though it was HBO

Network tv has more sex than Trek.

 

[SeerSGB]

I'm constantly baffled at the way people talk about NuTrek as though it was HBO

Network tv has more sex than Trek.

I wonder if the same people that bitch about 10 or 20 seconds worth of women in their underwear in the new movies bitched at the similar scenes in the old movies.

 

[Cara007]

Its great that we are all talking about Kirk and his great attributes but can we all get back to the main topic. how many of you really want Orci and his friends to return. I don't.

It's already confirmed that they are. I think this should be "their" trilogy - it would be strange for the 3rd (and possibly final) installment to have a completely different feel to the other two.

I don't think a change a writers would mean that the next film would have a completely different feel from the other two unless they really aim to radically change the feel and tone. It will ultimately depend on what the next director wants to do. I actually would like a change in writing just to reflect the series growing and maturing. It would be a shame for a third film to feel interchangeable with the first. A film series needs to grow, otherwise it feels like it's going nowhere. That's what I like about the original Star Wars trilogy as each film went for a different tone and it wasn't just because of different directors but that Lucas wanted to make it feel like audiences are on a journey. That's one aspect of Star Wars I think Trek needs most rather than just making the phasers shoot more like laser blasters and such. Also, I'd hate for this series to stop with a third installment merely because a bunch of other genre film franchises quit at #3. I'd like to see this series go as far as either TOS and TNG films, making that a minimum of four films. Maybe have a fifth film take place on the end of their five year mission, where we get to see how far the characters have come since the first.

I love your Star Wars reference about Lucas taking the audience on a journey.

A new Hope: Luke discovers he is a special kid. he leaves home to go on a very enchanting adventure.

Empire Strikes Back: Luke learns the awful truth about him and you know who.

Return of the Jedi: Luke comes to term with who he is and who he should be. he also gives his father a chance at redemption.

The Last 2 trek films has been about revenge and revenge. I hope we get something different in the third film.

I adored the 2009 film (one of the best Trek and sci-fi film ever and perhaps Orci and Kurtzman's best work)

I liked the 2013 film.

I want to love the 2016 film.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I too am tired of the revenge angle and that's not because it's bee used on both Abrams films but that it's also been used in the three films prior! Nearly half the films have a revenge element, I think it's time to put that to rest and do something original. Hopefully Orci and Kurtzman are well aware of that and do something different, rather than do the same thing over and over "because we made the most successful Trek films ever, therefore we repeat it!"

 

[Timewalker]

Okay how about the guy that wrote contact. I can't remember his name but you know the film. The one with Jodi Foster. He could pen the next Trek film.

Carl Sagan has been dead for nearly 17 years, and while some of his work has been published posthumously, none of it has been fiction.

Did you ever read the actual Contact novel? In some ways it's quite different from the movie.

Did you ever see Cosmos? In one of the episodes, he makes a case for why he doesn't think that stories like Star Wars (and presumably Star Trek) could actually happen.

So even if Sagan were still alive, he would very likely not be willing to write a Star Trek movie.

 

[Harbinger]

Maybe they should get Greg Bear to write the next Star Trek but that would probably lead to some Q level crap right there if Silentium is any clue.

 

[SeerSGB]

We could always try to get Karen Traviss. Just think of it: Traviss versus Trekkies...you'd be kissing Orci's feet after that

 

[Nerys Myk]

Dare I google Traviss?

 

[SeerSGB]

Ellison--and I'm not kidding. I was gnawing this over, if we're talking SCIFI, give Elllison the reigns to do what he does best.

Dare I google Traviss?

I'll save you the trip.

Short version: Epic piss fit when Lucasfilm dared to change her take on the Mandolorians in Clone Wars, epic messageboard fights.

Anytime someone whines about how fans of <insert fandom> are getting treat, she's my go to for "Yeah, but it cold be worse".

 

[CorporalClegg]

So even if Sagan were still alive, he would very likely not be willing to write a Star Trek movie.

You're erroneously drawing a conclusion based on an assumption.

The only thing we know for certain is Nick was a fan and wrote several episodes of Star Trek. His father's influence (or there lack of) is an unknown.

And just because a person says he doesn't think something could be real, doesn't mean he's not a fan. That's a fallacy.

For the record, I don't think Star Trek stuff can happen either, but I'm still a fan. I'd also jump at the chance to write a film.

That said, even if he were alive, Sagan would not be the right person for the job.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I would just hate to have a Trek movie all 2001 like with huge science and dramatic edge of galaxy god computer hard sci fi stuff. I don't want my Trek hard sci fi.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Having Trek try to aim for something high-brow like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is as wrong as trying to aim for something low-brow like TRANSFORMERS. I prefer Trek to be somewhere in the middle, where it can be both thoughtful and entertaining like TOS was.