Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[CorporalClegg]

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.

Like every Star Trek film I-XII ... Well, except for Insurrection. White vegan hipsters posing as American Native Amish are neither thoughtful or entertaining.

 

[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.

Like every Star Trek film I-XII

Not all of them. TMP seemed to want a piece of that 2001 cake, but didn't have much going for it to be all that profound. TFF seemed to juggle between high brow (the grand search for God) and low (slapstick shenanigans). The Abrams films dip too close to low brow for my tastes, with all the Paul Blart level humor inserted like Kirk having Nutty Professor hands and a numb tongue.

I think the best Trek film examples of middle brow done right is TWOK, TVH, TUC and FC. To me, they represent Trek with the right amount of doing something dramatically earnest while at the same time knowing when to have a little fun so not to come off so po-faced like NEMESIS, or schizophrenic like THE FINAL FRONTIER.

 

[Commishsleer]

I have no loyalty to Orci and Kurtzman. I just want the best man/woman for the job.

Sounds to me that most of the Star Trek movies had some sort of agenda - Kirk's son, Data's death, Kirk vs Picard, Kirk riding horses, Picard going dune-buggying, Data with emotions.
I'd like a comprehensive, plothole-less (story) written without the writers having to magically patch these studio-enforced themes in. I'm dreaming aren't I?

 

[Timewalker]

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.

I know Carl Sagan was a SF fan. He said so himself, and described how he enjoyed Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom books when he was a child, and fantasized about going to Mars himself, like his hero John Carter.

I saw Cosmos in its initial run. I've read the book. I've read other Sagan books. I read his Contact novel, and I've honestly lost count of how many times I saw the movie. Yes, it's that good.

However, just because Carl Sagan was very good at popularizing science and inspiring many people to embrace science - especially anything to do with astronomy and the space program - that doesn't mean he would be good at writing Star Trek. And I have to say that his novel was good, but not great. There were places where the plot meandered a bit and some parts of it seemed pointless. But none of those parts were the ones that dealt with the science.

Sagan always came across as completely, sincerely believing in everything he wrote, and everything he said. And one of the things he made crystal-clear in Cosmos is that he considered situations such as those depicted in Star Wars (or by extension any other space-based group of aliens interacting as a real-time political body of planets) to be "unlikely." His reasons were due to the science behind it, not any dislike for SF itself.

I'm aware that Nick Sagan wrote some Star Trek episodes, and a lot of other SF, as well. Given his credentials and skill, I'm sure that he would do a fine job if he was given the chance (assuming he was interested in the first place).

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.

Oh, heaven forbid that science fiction should include any actual science!

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I learned so much science from movies I-X I just can't fit any more in.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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.

If Star Trek and Into Darkness are about revenge, then the Star Wars OT is about Vader and Palpatine trying to conquer the galaxy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Oh, heaven forbid that science fiction should include any actual science!

How does teacock's statement translate into "no science"? Star Trek is not hard sci-fi. Never really has been. Space and science are just part of the setting not the driving force behind the stories.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

For example, what was the narrative purpose of that moment where Kirk asks McCoy what Spock would do if Kirk was in Spock's position? McCoy said he'd leave Kirk to die as if to imply that Spock would under no circumstance violate any rule even if it meant saving the life of someone important. There is no moment in this film that pays off this exchange nor is there any moment where Spock himself violates any kind of rule to save Kirk in the end. It's a long drawn out moment that never pays off.

That would have been a more interesting pay off, but there's already a problem with the set up itself. Spock is helping to save the natives from a natural disaster, which means he's already violating the prime directive, yet he insists that Kirk shouldn't come and save him because that would violate the prime directive? It probably would have worked better if the writers decided not to adopt the TNG model of the prime directive, so that the only violation made was exposing the natives to the Enterprise.

 

[Timewalker]

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.

Oh, heaven forbid that science fiction should include any actual science!

How does teacock's statement translate into "no science"? Star Trek is not hard sci-fi. Never really has been. Space and science are just part of the setting not the driving force behind the stories.

I took the meaning of the post to mean, "Please don't bore me with science. Just give me the adventure, and if you have to ignore fundamental scientific principles, that's fine by me."

If that's a misunderstanding, feel free to correct me.

There's nothing wrong with hard science fiction. If there was, there wouldn't have been much of it written over the decades.

 

[SeerSGB]

Hard sci-fi and Star Trek don't play well together.

 

[CorporalClegg]

There's nothing wrong with hard science fiction. If there was, there wouldn't have been much of it written over the decades.

"Hard science fiction" is a niche that doesn't belong in a big budget motion picture.

Also, just because a thing exists, even in abundance, does not make it right or valid.

 

[Timewalker]

There's nothing wrong with hard science fiction. If there was, there wouldn't have been much of it written over the decades.

"Hard science fiction" is a niche that doesn't belong in a big budget motion picture.

Of course not. That's why everyone hated the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey tried to be scientifically accurate as regards sounds in space (among other things).*

*I acknowledge that I don't know what that movie's budget was, or if it was considered "big" for its time.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

That's why everyone hated the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey tried to be scientifically accurate as regards sounds in space (among other things).

And that is why I have always believed Firefly to be a documentary.

 

[Timewalker]

Firefly was entertaining, and I've enjoyed watching Nathan Fillion ever since he played Joey Buchanan on One Life to Live. But that show was no documentary.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There's nothing wrong with hard science fiction. If there was, there wouldn't have been much of it written over the decades.

"Hard science fiction" is a niche that doesn't belong in a big budget motion picture.

Of course not. That's why everyone hated the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey tried to be scientifically accurate as regards sounds in space (among other things).*

*I acknowledge that I don't know what that movie's budget was, or if it was considered "big" for its time.

Everybody hated no such thing. You may as well have said that you acknowledge that you don't really have any idea what people who saw 2001 in the theater hated about it.

 

[Timewalker]

"Hard science fiction" is a niche that doesn't belong in a big budget motion picture.

Of course not. That's why everyone hated the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey tried to be scientifically accurate as regards sounds in space (among other things).*

*I acknowledge that I don't know what that movie's budget was, or if it was considered "big" for its time.

Everybody hated no such thing. You may as well have said that you acknowledge that you don't really have any idea what people who saw 2001 in the theater hated about it.

You have failed to recognize that I was being sarcastic. I should have added the appropriate smiley to indicate that.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I hated it because it was boring as all crap.

The silence in space though, that was kind of peaceful.

 

[Timewalker]

The movie did inspire some artists to do some rather cute Monolith comics, though. In fact, I have a couple of ones where Michael Goodwin combines TOS and 2001 - Who Was That Monolith I Saw You With? and Son of Monolith.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Of course not. That's why everyone hated the fact that 2001: A Space Odyssey tried to be scientifically accurate as regards sounds in space (among other things).*

*I acknowledge that I don't know what that movie's budget was, or if it was considered "big" for its time.

Everybody hated no such thing. You may as well have said that you acknowledge that you don't really have any idea what people who saw 2001 in the theater hated about it.

You have failed to recognize that I was being sarcastic. I should have added the appropriate smiley to indicate that.

Oh, OK.

But, you know, 2001 was exceptional, so it's not like you can easily use it as a film indicative of any kind of trend, especially any kind of bandwagon trend.

Plus, even if it weren't the exception to almost every rule in movie making, it was released over four decades ago, so that doesn't really tell us anything about what today's audiences want in terms of hard science fiction.

Gravity, on the other hand, probably tells us a whole lot more, but I would also respect the opinion that Gravity isn't science fiction. Although I think Gravity is science fiction, it's certainly not the same kind of science fiction as 2001, Silent Running, or Moon, and nor is it in the same category as either Primer or Source Code, all five of which at least arguably are examples of hard science fiction films (note that there are two from Duncan Jones).

Source Code proves that (arguably) hard science fiction can be commercially successful, but that film also is all kinds of exceptional.

 

[Timewalker]

Everybody hated no such thing. You may as well have said that you acknowledge that you don't really have any idea what people who saw 2001 in the theater hated about it.

You have failed to recognize that I was being sarcastic. I should have added the appropriate smiley to indicate that.

Oh, OK.

But, you know, 2001 was exceptional, so it's not like you can easily use it as a film indicative of any kind of trend, especially any kind of bandwagon trend.

Plus, even if it weren't the exception to almost every rule in movie making, it was released over four decades ago, so that doesn't really tell us anything about what today's audiences want in terms of hard science fiction.

Gravity, on the other hand, probably tells us a whole lot more, but I would also respect the opinion that Gravity isn't science fiction. Although I think Gravity is science fiction, it's certainly not the same kind of science fiction as 2001, Silent Running, or Moon, and nor is it in the same category as either Primer or Source Code, all five of which at least arguably are examples of hard science fiction films (note that there are two from Duncan Jones).

Source Code proves that (arguably) hard science fiction can be commercially successful, but that film also is all kinds of exceptional.

All I know about Gravity is what I read when I looked it up. The site spoiled the entire plot, so there's not much point in my seeing it. Some astronauts said it was reasonably accurate, and others disagreed. As for me, I'd ask Chris Hadfield's opinion. After all, he was in charge of the International Space Station.