‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

[Emperor Norton]

No. Two sequences weren't the entire movie.

The entire movie was based on "hey, remember Wrath of Khan?" You can take the initial idea and run with it to something interesting; that's what good remakes do. But it was made with the idea of the audience thinking about Wrath of Khan while watching it. Again, references rather than plot point, and confusing the former for that latter.

The movie's approach wasn't direct enough for you? Did you expect them to actually say something like what you wrote?

The point of Science Fiction is that, because that alien is green, you cannot tell initially that the story is a social commentary on segregation. That is the abstract. It removes the audience from their reality, and then has them see their reality in a different way because people would believe their preconceived notions if you just made it about whatever you were making a commentary on. Science Fiction, done well, makes the audience come to the place they started, knowing it for the first time.

Or, you can confront it directly, and flat out mention what it is...but it should still be abstract. Because the problem you run into is someone just saying "this is a 20th century drone strike" which it transparently was. It wasn't modified into the green alien, as it were; something which fit the setting, but was analogous to the issue that was to be discussed.

 

[Amaris]

^ To add, directly referencing a 20th/21st century "War on Terror," would just be really banal. Star Trek when it addresses current issues, is all about allegory. Just coming right out and saying it is the cheap, easy way out, and it completely loses its impact.

 

[BillJ]

You can take the initial idea and run with it to something interesting; that's what good remakes do.

I thought they did that. They took a character from Trek's past and put an interesting, different spin on it.

 

[Emperor Norton]

You can take the initial idea and run with it to something interesting; that's what good remakes do.

I thought they did that. They took a character from Trek's past and put an interesting, different spin on it.

The problem is not the basic idea of Khan in the movie, and the characters. The problem is the plot of the movie. A film should not rely on existing knowledge outside of the film; it can use that, but should not make itself just that. That's why I think Star Trek (2009) worked well, because it had both. That is also why "Wrath of Khan" itself worked well, because you didn't have to even see Space Seed or Star Trek to enjoy it. A movie should have some degree of independence. And my problem with Into Darkness was that it had no independent weight unto itself; it didn't do a good job setting things up or giving them meaning. It was just "you know this is Khan, so it must matter", which is not enough. Again, it was references confused as plot, which is why the Star Wars prequels didn't work.

 

[BillJ]

The problem is not the basic idea of Khan in the movie, and the characters. The problem is the plot of the movie. A film should not rely on existing knowledge outside of the film; it can use that, but should not make itself just that. That's why I think Star Trek (2009) worked well, because it had both. That is also why "Wrath of Khan" itself worked well, because you didn't have to even see Space Seed or Star Trek to enjoy it. A movie should have some degree of independence. And my problem with Into Darkness was that it had no independent weight unto itself; it didn't do a good job setting things up or giving them meaning. It was just "you know this is Khan, so it must matter", which is not enough. Again, it was references confused as plot, which is why the Star Wars prequels didn't work.

There was no more exposition about the character in The Wrath of Khan than there was in Into Darkness.

 

[Emperor Norton]

The problem is not the basic idea of Khan in the movie, and the characters. The problem is the plot of the movie. A film should not rely on existing knowledge outside of the film; it can use that, but should not make itself just that. That's why I think Star Trek (2009) worked well, because it had both. That is also why "Wrath of Khan" itself worked well, because you didn't have to even see Space Seed or Star Trek to enjoy it. A movie should have some degree of independence. And my problem with Into Darkness was that it had no independent weight unto itself; it didn't do a good job setting things up or giving them meaning. It was just "you know this is Khan, so it must matter", which is not enough. Again, it was references confused as plot, which is why the Star Wars prequels didn't work.

There was no more exposition about the character in The Wrath of Khan than there was in Into Darkness.

I'm not sure your meaning. I didn't say there was more exposition. Wrath of Khan worked for an audience because you could get the gist of what was going on regardless of preexisting knowledge/regardless of seeing Star Trek before, because of the plot and the narrative and the writing. Into Darkness failed because it expected its audience to just think of Wrath of Khan and Khan while watching it, and mentally invest a soul into everything going on.

 

[BillJ]

I'm not sure your meaning. I didn't say there was more exposition. Wrath of Khan worked for an audience because you could get the gist of what was going on regardless of preexisting knowledge/regardless of seeing Star Trek before, because of the plot and the narrative and the writing. Into Darkness failed because it expected its audience to just think of Wrath of Khan and Khan while watching it, and mentally invest a soul into everything going on.

I disagree. I think audiences not educated in Star Trek could easily get a handle on what was going in the film. Everything that the audience needs to know is in the film itself.

 

[YARN]

There was no more exposition about the character in The Wrath of Khan than there was in Into Darkness.

1. It was the same actor playing the same character in the same continuity.

2. The exposition that Khan gets in TWoK is awesome. We learn what we need to know from Chekov filling in Captain Tyrell and from Khan himself. We learn that he is a product of genetic engineering and that he was a powerful "prince" on Earth at one time, that the Enterprise found the Botany Bay adrift in space, that he tried to capture the Enterprise, that things went bad on Ceti Alpha 5, and that Khan blames Kirk.

This scene occurs early in the movie. We get the sense that Khan is a legit tough guy (my ears!) and that he has a legit history with Kirk. Even for those who never saw Space Seed, you get the sense of what happened.

In STiD, on the other hand, it's all John Harrison, John Harrison, John Harrison, and then BAM! "Surprise! I am Khan!" - to which Kirk and Spock should have said, "You're who?" There is no history between the characters in this continuity, there is no sense of any relationship (because there isn't one). All we get is old-Spock acting as a cheat-sheet for nu-Spock, "Yeah, bad dude. Worst threat ever. Blah. Blah." but John Harrison was tough enough without giving him a meaningless name-change calling back to old Star Trek.

 

[Emperor Norton]

I'm not sure your meaning. I didn't say there was more exposition. Wrath of Khan worked for an audience because you could get the gist of what was going on regardless of preexisting knowledge/regardless of seeing Star Trek before, because of the plot and the narrative and the writing. Into Darkness failed because it expected its audience to just think of Wrath of Khan and Khan while watching it, and mentally invest a soul into everything going on.

I disagree. I think audiences not educated in Star Trek could easily get a handle on what was going in the film. Everything that the audience needs to know is in the film itself.

I'll give you a short critique of that position. In the film, a big initial moment was Cumberbatch going "My name is Khan", and Kirk et al going "Oh my God" over that. (They didn't say that; I mean the emotional and narrative reaction). What they should have said, and I believe I'm stealing this from Redlettermedia, is "ok".....because how the hell are they supposed to know it's Khan Noonien Singh? If some guy walks up to me on the street and says "My name is Joseph", am I supposed to assume I'm talking to an unfrozen Stalin? Khan's not an uncommon name on earth depending on the nation, and you're in a galaxy of countless inhabited worlds.

I think that is a short window on the psychology of the writers.

And onto where it relates to this part of the discussion, that scene relies on you to go "oh my God" in the theater because you already know who Khan is. It relies on you to invest more emotional weight than what is actually there on the screen and in the story as contained in that film. And in that sense, one it doesn't work, two it is very lazy on the writers' parts.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Has Orci ever responded to genuine criticisms of his writing? He seems to look for ways to evade them by pointing out his movies were successful, as if that means any criticisms don't matter. His bit on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is hilarious too, as if social commentary alone is what puts it above that film, no matter if it was actually done well. Though it was odd of whoever that fan was to bring up RAIDERS since that's a very different kind of film with different sensibilities and goals. Maybe if nuTrek aimed more for that and less on badly done social commentary, I'd be able to go along with the films better as roller coaster rides.

That opening in STID is actually a very good example and true to the RAIDERS tone where it's more about the adventure than anything else. I think it's too bad the whole film isn't like that. It seems to me Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof felt obligated to do some kind of social commentary because Trek gets a lot praise for doing that in the past. It's not their forte, it might have been better if they recognized that.

For me, at least.

 

[Emperor Norton]

I'll link this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLGH0VHUVs

 

[Belz...]

That being said, it comes off as juvenile and reflects accordingly on the writers.

I agree that it has no place in a script. Doesn't sound very professional. It's not that I mind, but I just find it juvenile. In fact, since it has no effect on the product, one has to wonder why it's there at all. It's like insisting on printing your script on red paper.

I guess that settles it. This will the first Trek film I'll skip in two decades.

Why ? You don't even know if it'll be good or not, yet.

Emily Asher-Perrin at Tor.com explains the train wreck succinctly.

Yeah, the title of that article isn't biased at all.

Yeah, that sums it up well. You do not release a piece of media to the public and then start cussing out the people who don't like your work. That's psychotic.

In what universe is it "psychotic" ?

Hell, the entire movie was just one giant reference to Wrath of Khan.

Aside from the mere presence of Khan, and the reactor scene, what, exactly, is a "giant reference" to ST2 ?

I agree with you that using Khan was totally unnecessary, though.

The point of Science Fiction is that, because that alien is green, you cannot tell initially that the story is a social commentary on segregation.

The point of science fiction is not to tell social commentary in a roundabout way. It's just how _some_ people write it.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I guess that settles it. This will the first Trek film I'll skip in two decades.

Why?

Because I've never enjoyed any of his credited work, it's very likely I won't enjoy anything he'll ever make.

You don't even know if it'll be good or not, yet.

I don't know if the next Michael Bay TRANSFORMERS film is going to be good or not either, but given that I didn't enjoy any of them, I'm not going to bother seeing it.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I guess that settles it. This will the first Trek film I'll skip in two decades.

Why?

Because I've never enjoyed any of his credited work, it's very likely I won't enjoy anything he'll ever make.

A musical analogy.

Are there any bands/solo artists you've listened to, and only liked +/-50% of their material? Are there any bands/solo artists you've always disliked, then wham, they release a tune you can't help but love?

I know that's happened to me on several occasions, with thought processes along the lines of, OK, I'm impressed, I really didn't think they were up to that etc.

 

[BritishSeaPower]

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but I thought Joe Cornish was the name attached to Trek XIII.

I can't say I'd be interested in an Orci-directed movie.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but I thought Joe Cornish was the name attached to Trek XIII.

No, his name became unattached to the project some time ago.

 

[Set Harth]

The entire movie was based on "hey, remember Wrath of Khan?"

That's an exaggeration. The Khan reveal isn't until the middle of the film. Then there is Nibiru, which has nothing to do with Khan at all. Characteristics were added to Khan's abilities which were not present in TWOK. Not to mention that things like the citation of the 72 crew members would be "hey, remember Space Seed?" as opposed to "hey, remember TWOK?" TWOK is still only directly referenced in the Spock call and the reactor scene and by the presence of Carol Marcus.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Why?

Because I've never enjoyed any of his credited work, it's very likely I won't enjoy anything he'll ever make.

A musical analogy.

Are there any bands/solo artists you've listened to, and only liked +/-50% of their material? Are there any bands/solo artists you've always disliked, then wham, they release a tune you can't help but love?

I know that's happened to me on several occasions, with thought processes along the lines of, OK, I'm impressed, I really didn't think they were up to that etc.

Can't recall off hand to be honest. What really makes me doubt Orci is that he's shown that he's incapable of responding to criticism of any kind. He's very assure of himself and his writing because he knows these movies are going to make money regardless, so why would he take advice? This is why you often hear phrases like "hack writer" thrown at him.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm not sure your meaning. I didn't say there was more exposition. Wrath of Khan worked for an audience because you could get the gist of what was going on regardless of preexisting knowledge/regardless of seeing Star Trek before, because of the plot and the narrative and the writing. Into Darkness failed because it expected its audience to just think of Wrath of Khan and Khan while watching it, and mentally invest a soul into everything going on.

I disagree. I think audiences not educated in Star Trek could easily get a handle on what was going in the film. Everything that the audience needs to know is in the film itself.

I'll give you a short critique of that position. In the film, a big initial moment was Cumberbatch going "My name is Khan", and Kirk et al going "Oh my God" over that. (They didn't say that; I mean the emotional and narrative reaction). What they should have said, and I believe I'm stealing this from Redlettermedia, is "ok".....because how the hell are they supposed to know it's Khan Noonien Singh? If some guy walks up to me on the street and says "My name is Joseph", am I supposed to assume I'm talking to an unfrozen Stalin? Khan's not an uncommon name on earth depending on the nation, and you're in a galaxy of countless inhabited worlds.

Wait, Kirk and co didn't react to Khan's reveal. There was a pause and a cue for the audience, granted, but Kirk's reaction was, "what would a 300 year old frozen man..." with an awe and recognition quotient of zero.

 

[Set Harth]

In the film, a big initial moment was Cumberbatch going "My name is Khan", and Kirk et al going "Oh my God" over that.

I don't remember that.

They didn't say that

I guess that's why I don't remember it...

because how the hell are they supposed to know it's Khan Noonien Singh?

The same way they figured it out in Space Seed? Or because that's what Spock Prime is for? Anything else in their reactions toward him is adequately explained by everything he told them about himself during the film.

I guess Redlettermedia done screwed up again.